This rant has been on my mind for awhile...
- Thread starter Vincent Vash
- Start date
- Status
JustinJ
Member
I don't really buy into the notion that there is widespread deterrence against crime caused by private gun ownership. I'm not saying it has no deterrent effect but its minimal. Most crimes are committed by young men with delusions of invincibility.
I'm sure the use of other weapons would go up. However, the other commonly available weapons tend to be less effective especially when used in attempts at mass killing. Still, the overall numbers of criminal homicides would likely go down eventually if all guns were outlawed.
That is huge part of the problem however realistically you will never stop this from occurring. Rather than wait for something to happen that never will practical steps are taken to reduce the fatalities.
Whether or not it is a deterrent, people can find other weapons with which to their business. The every day criminal will still commit violence, and even if they don't kill the victim, it's still a tragedy. The people focused on mass killings are deranged, but honestly incredibly smart. They will find a way to inflict maximum damage with whatever weapons they have available. Remember, the biggest attacks the US has had has been from bombs made with everyday home chemicals, or box cutters. Someone could also light a building on fire or figure out some other heinous act.
So...might curb a few homocides, but it won't prevent mugging, assault, domestic violence, or mass murder.
JustinJ
Member
What is the fallacy of thinking? All i'm talking about is a what-if scenario. Sure there would be some criminals that always owned guns but not nearly as commonly as today. I'm not advocating all guns be outlawed and as i've said there would certainly be huge costs to doing so. Realistically i believe if it were implemented guns owned by those with criminal intent would steadily go down as well but it would certainly not be an overnight process. Again, i certainly don't want this. I firmly believe in an individual's right to protect his or her self. That does not mean i blindly accept every pro-gun argument made.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
You've made this assertion before. It is as flawed now as it was then.
You attempt to characterize increased gun control as "trying to reduce [violence/crime]," and then assert that -- even though gun control has never been proven to result in crime reduction -- there is some validity in "trying" to reduce this strawman construct, "gun related" violence.
There is no merit in "trying" if the thing you're "trying" has failed over and over. There are plenty of other things that can be done to reduce violent crime that have nothing to do with controlling guns, and it is a continuation of a failed theme to keep insisting that "gun control" equates to "trying to reduce violence."
If you keep doing it, and it keeps not working, it's time to "try" something else. Giving up on gun control is in no way the same thing as "giving up" on violent crime, and to keep suggesting such sameness is intellectually dishonest, or possibly the result of a fixed idea that will not submit to reason.
Again, continuing to fixate on "gun related" crimes is to accept the anti-gun notion that somehow "guns = crime" or that "guns = violence."
Guns are not crime, guns are not violence, and guns are not the cause of either one.
This repeated effort to frame anti-gun arguments as "reasonable" or as "understandable" is essentially an acceptance of an anti-gun premise.
The foundation premise is faulty.
The fact that it has been known to be faulty for years throws the dishonesty of the perpetuation of this meme into high relief.
It doesn't matter whether the anti-gun argument is "understandable."
It is wrong.
It doesn't matter whether it can be argued that an anti-gunner is "reasonable" in his effort to reach his wrong conclusions.
The conclusions are still wrong.
You don't fix a problem by acting as an advocate for the population of people who keep offering wrong solutions and bad reasoning.
It is a mistake to keep trying to "fix us" by helping us "understand" how these "misguided souls" might "reasonably" arrive at their wrong conclusions and broken solutions.
We're not the ones with the faulty premise, bad data, broken reasoning, and unworkable solutions, and there is no benefit to contorting our thinking to "see it their way."
That's already been tried.
And now that we've managed to become enlightened, it's time for them to divest themselves of their benighted beliefs and attain some enlightenment of their own.
JustinJ
Member
Whether or not gun control has or could positively impact crime is a different subject. What i am trying to point out is that this "all or nothing" argument is flawed and should not be used in arguing against anybody with half a brain because it is easily countered. Arguing that gun control can't or hasn't reduced crime or that the cost of such is too high is one thing. But saying "there will always be violence no matter what" is something different and not likely to resonate with a gun control advocate.
I agree that there is no "proof" that instituting new gun control laws has ever been "proven" to reduce crime. There is also no proof that it hasn't either. Nor is there proof that expanding gun rights has reduced crime either. It is unfortunately something that each side can only hypothesize about given crime rates are influenced by countless variables. In my opinion a better argument is that the cost of gun control is not worth the price but that's a different subject.
Of course giving up on gun control is not equal to giving up on reducing crime and i never said anything to the contrary. Statements such as "there has always been and always be violence" sound a lot more like giving up on reducing violent crime than anything i've said.
No, it is just simply not. Acknowledging that guns are very often a component of crime is not equating them to crime itself in any way, shape or form.
Which "ant-gun premise" am i allegedly accepting? Unlike you, i realize this is not a black or white subject with everything the other side says as untrue or wrong and while every argument supporting my position is right. I don't know how much luck you've had in debate in general but flat our refusing to acknowledge or even consider an opponent's points is a great way to ensure they do the same to you. If you want somebody to be willing to listen and open to considering your point of view you might want to try doing the same. Refusing to even consider points counter to one's opinion is also intellectually lazy and not productive.
Sitting here and just blindly accepting every argument for gun rights and refusing to even consider arguments against it is a very poor way to help people prepare for debating a gun control advocate. Would you prefer we all just sit here and be cheerleader for one another's pro-gun statements rather than do something productive like actually examining them because that is what an opponent in debate will be doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I am saying is that there seems to be the belief by the anti-gun community that if you have 100 murders, 60 by gun, 20 by knife, 10 by bare hands, and 10 by other weapons/tools, that since "gun violence is 60% of murders", banning guns will reduce the murder rate by 60%. "Well, if we didn't have guns, we'd only have 40 murders!" Well, hoe many of those crimes were commited by people who, absent a gun, would use a knife or a tire iron instead? How many drunk wife beaters would have just beaten their wife to death instead of shooting her? If there was a mass shooting, what's to say he wouldn't use a bomb? So, yes, a few people might be deterred by not having access to a gun to use in their crime, and a few others might fail to kill their victim with a bludgeoning attack, but the murder rate will not drop a significant amount just because guns aren't involved.
JustinJ
Member
I hear what you're saying. Definitely there are murders committed by guns which would have been attempted some other way had the gun not been available. I don't know if those who support gun control don't realize this but i suspect not. While many of the murders would be committed another way there are those that wouldn't though and not just mass murders. I think there is a psychological threshold for committing murder that is easier crossed by pulling a trigger than stabbing or beating someone to death. Other things like "drive by" shootings would also of course not be possible without a gun.
Obviously how many murders would not occur without a gun being available is impossible to say but i think it would actually be a substantial number. Mass killings i think would certainly be reduced dramatically. Yes, arson is possible but trapping people in a building long enough to burn to death is increasingly difficult with modern construction techniques. Acquiring explosives is also beyond the scope of many mass killers and a good percentage who attempted manufacture would be more likely to blow themselves up.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Is it your impression that this is a new debate?
It's been going on for friggin' decades.
We have members here on the board who were involved in the 1968 fiasco.
"Consider arguments?" Yeah, we did that. It was massive fail.
We were "reasonable" and they were "understandably concerned."
And then they lied. And they continued to lie. And they continue to lie and misrepresent and distort to this day.
Yes, there are thousands, possibly even millions, who haven't seen this whole thing evolve, and who are partly or entirely persuaded by those lies. It has been made painfully clear to us that conceding anything to the anti-gun side of the debate is a mistake.
I am no longer the least bit interested in this "compromise" approach.
I was an adult before "gun violence" even became a term. But even then I was foolish enough to believe that the volume of the hysteria had to mean that there was at least something valid in their claims. I was too inexperienced to be engaged in the 1968 debacle, and the "gun community" didn't even exist, any more than there is a "chain saw community" today. It was only after the perfidy of the gun grabbers became clear that a "gun community" came into being. And I was late to that party as well.
My grasp and understanding of this has taken years. I only woke up after the 1994 scam, which used an attempted murder done with a revolver -- a small caliber revolver -- to drive legislation which banned and restricted all manner of things, but which specifically exempted revolvers.
I no longer concede any "reasonability" to the gun control side.
They've lied so often and so long, encroached and abridged our rights without shame under whatever pretext they could sell, that I have no sympathy at all for that "cause."
I don't know whether you're just new to this or whether you have accepted "logic" that foists falsehoods as "data," but there is nothing in your argumentation that suggests new concepts or new understandings.
It took time for me to take enough responsibility to quit allowing false propositions to form the foundation for a "legitimate" discussion.
"All or nothing?"
I want my rights back. All of them. And I grant nothing to incrementalism.
I realize that I may not get my rights back all at once, and I may have to settle for an incremental restoration, but I'm done with incremental encroachment.
Actually unwanted pregnancies have decreased dramatically. Here's an article from a source you probably trust.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/08/teen-pregnancy-rates-reach-dramatic-40-year-low-in-us/
Next time you want to invent statistics don't say something so obviously wrong.
12131
Member
Man, do you actually bother to read the Guttmacher Institute's actual "study" and their agenda, or do you just post the news article without digging a little deeper?
There is no study, as one understands it. They didn't design any experiment to come up with a conclusion. All they did was gather all the data that are already available, and tried to fit them into their agenda. Oh look everybody, teenage pregnancies decline over the past two decades thanks to "more contraception strategy". But then, when the pregnancy rates went up in 2005-2006, they scratched their collective head, and came up with what?
Blame Bush! Surprised? I'm not.
Direct quote from their News Release, http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/01/26/index.html:
What's that saying? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Shadow 7D
Member
Guns are a tool, the issue is a behavior, specifically criminal behavior
it's much akin to blaming the desks for ADD
with the Anit's line being akin to 'if it weren't for the inactivity forced by desks we would have no ADD'
So, if you like gun control, YOU blame the HAMMER when you smash your thumb, or do you blame the NAIL?
it's much akin to blaming the desks for ADD
with the Anit's line being akin to 'if it weren't for the inactivity forced by desks we would have no ADD'
So, if you like gun control, YOU blame the HAMMER when you smash your thumb, or do you blame the NAIL?
I wholeheartedly agree with ArfinGreebly's point(s). When you give up some of your gun rights and privileges under the guise of "cooperation" you lose rights and privileges.....period. Space does not permit a lengthy dialogue, but one of these days I plan to write an essay about unintended consequences of do-gooder mentality. Gun grabbers always give themselves the high ground by claiming to be in favor of "saving lives" and who doesn't want that? But, that same do-gooder will put on hefty blinders if you try to point out the catastrophic problems inherent in gun confiscation. The catchy come-back is often something like, "Well, we've gotta do something."
JustinJ
Member
Is it your impression that no minds can be swayed or there are not young people today grasping with these issues for the first time? Whatever did or did not happen in the past it's new for plenty of people on both sides. We're talking about debates with individuals who support gun control or who may be on the fence. Not campaign ads or national lobbying strategy.
What i'm talking about is ways to persuade them to favor gun rights.
Which they are you talking about? The vast majority of debates happening today, and the most meaningful, are between everyday american. Discussion with friends, co-workers, family members, etc. HR board members and are not going to be debating with Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign leadership very often.
Conceding points of reason is not the same thing as conceding gun rights. Agreeing that mass shootings are bad things is not admitting there should be more gun control. Or are you too hardline to even agree with the "anti's" on that point? Im not advocating compromise of gun rights. I'm talking about debate methods and avoiding weak arguments.
Well, i've never been one to believe in being swayed by public hysteria and that is certainly not what i'm talking about.
Well, if i had a quarter for every hysterical "pro-gun" chain email full of distortions and lies i'd have a few new AR's. So it goes both ways. It's unfortunate when people get too busy attacking another group to even notice the mistakes of their own side but i guess thats our society today.
Then debate my points rather than making vague attacks. And what i am is not close minded or too insecure in my own intellect to be able to consider points that do not support my views.
Absolutely has nothing to do with anything i've said.
Shadow 7D
Member
Justin step back
do you not get that the entire premise of gun control is FLAWED
by engaging them in 'how bad guns are' is a mistake
you should redirect the conversation to what is an effective way to prevent criminal actions.
That and I walk through each of their reasonable 'compromises'
Would you go through a psychiatric exam, full medical and back ground investigation every time you bought a car, or *gasp* worse, got a license to drive? Driving should be left to trained professionals.
Computers, smart phones, tablets and anything capable of accessing the internet should be registered with your local, state and federal governments - You should be monitored online, you every action tracked by the government when you are online, you could be a terrorist or making child porn....
eventually, they get tweaked over you suggesting that they live under what they see as 1. NEVER impacting them, 2. a way to CONTROL others to keep themselves safe.
Anti's will usually never consider that what they take as 'bedrock truth' and hence base their entire arguments on (gun=crime/violence) is wrong, and it's fun force them to evaluate the 'givens'
they either concede that it's an emotional opinion
or get stuck in some funny loops, try not to laugh the 5th time they say the same thing over and over again thinking they are making a point, they get embarrassed.
So answer Justin, who do you blame when your thumb is smashed missing a nail, the HAMMER or the NAIL
usually I blame the idiot swinging it (me)
do you not get that the entire premise of gun control is FLAWED
by engaging them in 'how bad guns are' is a mistake
you should redirect the conversation to what is an effective way to prevent criminal actions.
That and I walk through each of their reasonable 'compromises'
Would you go through a psychiatric exam, full medical and back ground investigation every time you bought a car, or *gasp* worse, got a license to drive? Driving should be left to trained professionals.
Computers, smart phones, tablets and anything capable of accessing the internet should be registered with your local, state and federal governments - You should be monitored online, you every action tracked by the government when you are online, you could be a terrorist or making child porn....
eventually, they get tweaked over you suggesting that they live under what they see as 1. NEVER impacting them, 2. a way to CONTROL others to keep themselves safe.
Anti's will usually never consider that what they take as 'bedrock truth' and hence base their entire arguments on (gun=crime/violence) is wrong, and it's fun force them to evaluate the 'givens'
they either concede that it's an emotional opinion
or get stuck in some funny loops, try not to laugh the 5th time they say the same thing over and over again thinking they are making a point, they get embarrassed.
So answer Justin, who do you blame when your thumb is smashed missing a nail, the HAMMER or the NAIL
usually I blame the idiot swinging it (me)
Last edited:
Gun Geezer
Member
Regarding gun safety: I think it should be taught as a mandatory high school class. Along with lots of other safety topics:
- Ladder safety.
- Basic electrical saftey.
- Hearing conservation and safety.
- Eye protection.
- HazMat, you know basic stuff of everyday chemicals, gasoline, degreaser, etc.
- How to use a fire extingquisher.
- Power tool safety.
- Slips, trips, and falls.
- Situational awareness.
- Preventing back injuries.
- Blood borne pathogens.
the list goes on. It is so pathetic that high school grads know so little and so many are eventaully hurt/injured/killed or loose an eye by the simplest of things.
To get back on topic: Everyone should have gun safety training. The four rules, etc. Even Anti's need it.
- Ladder safety.
- Basic electrical saftey.
- Hearing conservation and safety.
- Eye protection.
- HazMat, you know basic stuff of everyday chemicals, gasoline, degreaser, etc.
- How to use a fire extingquisher.
- Power tool safety.
- Slips, trips, and falls.
- Situational awareness.
- Preventing back injuries.
- Blood borne pathogens.
the list goes on. It is so pathetic that high school grads know so little and so many are eventaully hurt/injured/killed or loose an eye by the simplest of things.
To get back on topic: Everyone should have gun safety training. The four rules, etc. Even Anti's need it.
fanchisimo
Member
While I have a hard time getting into this intellectual thicket, I simply am reminded of Blackstone's formulation, which is a common held legal belief:
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
As this is applied to gun control, why should everyone suffer for the misuse of a tool in the hands of a criminal. While there is probably a correlation between guns and violent crime results, gun disappearing instantly would not put a huge damper on crime and/or mass killings. I agree that it is impossible to quantify this.
JustinJ,
Skribs basically said this, but while I agree making C4 at home would be a stretch, I have seen the destructive capability Iraqi's with limited resources in the middle of a desert can do, so it can't be that difficult. But forgoing that, you can make a pretty big bang with some gasoline, propane tanks, exploding targets, and certainly many things added with nails, or other possible shrapnel into a very potent killing device.
I agree that too many of our rights have been taken but to say total unrestriction is irresponsible and I think that is the point Justin is trying to make. If it was black or white, total gun freedom or total gun oppression, I would go with the freedom. But Justin, a totally polarized result is what the anti's seem to be pursuing. I think that most gun owners would agree that some laws are agreeable, but that is where the anti's use incrementalism (new word learned, thanks Arfin
) to take too much.
tomrkba,
love this, but it would violate the 1st amendment, and we'd be just as bad as some of the anti's if we violated the bill of rights.
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
As this is applied to gun control, why should everyone suffer for the misuse of a tool in the hands of a criminal. While there is probably a correlation between guns and violent crime results, gun disappearing instantly would not put a huge damper on crime and/or mass killings. I agree that it is impossible to quantify this.
JustinJ,
Skribs basically said this, but while I agree making C4 at home would be a stretch, I have seen the destructive capability Iraqi's with limited resources in the middle of a desert can do, so it can't be that difficult. But forgoing that, you can make a pretty big bang with some gasoline, propane tanks, exploding targets, and certainly many things added with nails, or other possible shrapnel into a very potent killing device.
I agree that too many of our rights have been taken but to say total unrestriction is irresponsible and I think that is the point Justin is trying to make. If it was black or white, total gun freedom or total gun oppression, I would go with the freedom. But Justin, a totally polarized result is what the anti's seem to be pursuing. I think that most gun owners would agree that some laws are agreeable, but that is where the anti's use incrementalism (new word learned, thanks Arfin
) to take too much.tomrkba,
love this, but it would violate the 1st amendment, and we'd be just as bad as some of the anti's if we violated the bill of rights.
RoosterUSMC
Member
I can go down to Pasadena (the docks) and get a new 9MM that's never been registered in the US for $100. What's your point?
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
Why not pass a law making it illegal to be mentally unstable? That would be equally as effective as more gun laws....
aprayinbear
Member
I'm far to the left of most people here, but......
I have to say that I am probably far to the left of many people writing to this board, but concerning the original question.... I don't believe waiting periods serve anyone. I mean what is supposedly going on for those 3,5 or 10 day waits? My guess, nothing.
What I would like to see is more requirements about training when buying a firearm. Stand around a gun store long enough and you'll understand my feelings. Many people buying handguns (especially those buying for defense and who are first time buyers) don't even know how to check to see if a gun is safe.
Of course if you take a CCW class in SC you come out much more educated (in fact once you get your CCW in SC, you don't even have to do the the background check when you buy your next gun.) Also in SC, if you are 16 or under and want a hunting licence, you need to take a hunter safety course (offered for free at my local hospital.) To me that makes good sense.
Just My thoughts
I have to say that I am probably far to the left of many people writing to this board, but concerning the original question.... I don't believe waiting periods serve anyone. I mean what is supposedly going on for those 3,5 or 10 day waits? My guess, nothing.
What I would like to see is more requirements about training when buying a firearm. Stand around a gun store long enough and you'll understand my feelings. Many people buying handguns (especially those buying for defense and who are first time buyers) don't even know how to check to see if a gun is safe.
Of course if you take a CCW class in SC you come out much more educated (in fact once you get your CCW in SC, you don't even have to do the the background check when you buy your next gun.) Also in SC, if you are 16 or under and want a hunting licence, you need to take a hunter safety course (offered for free at my local hospital.) To me that makes good sense.
Just My thoughts
I'm for personal responsibility. I'm for individual rights. You can't fix stupid with some sort of manditory training...that just costs us all, encroaches on our rights, and will lead to denial of rights for some and eventual regstration and confiscation if the Anti's get their way.
If any law had proven to do some good I would embrace them. Not the case. Laws are useless since criminals ignore laws. All laws do is infringe of the activities of the law abiding.
Before 1933 there were no federal gun laws. For most of this nation's history there were no gun laws at all. Things were fine. Then all the liberal social control freaks (gun control is actually social control if you didn't realize it) took over and through lies and bullying forced the gun laws on us. They have, as all laws always do, proven worthless... except to impede the lawful.
I now advocate the repeal of all gun laws. All of them. They are a sham.
Before 1933 there were no federal gun laws. For most of this nation's history there were no gun laws at all. Things were fine. Then all the liberal social control freaks (gun control is actually social control if you didn't realize it) took over and through lies and bullying forced the gun laws on us. They have, as all laws always do, proven worthless... except to impede the lawful.
I now advocate the repeal of all gun laws. All of them. They are a sham.
- Status
