Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

This is a really stupid argument.

[Max White]

Concealed carriers are not incidentally arming criminals. I don't think you can find any statistic to show that they are. It's really not safe to try to wrestle a gun away from somebody.

No, carrying a gun probably won't help you if you are suddenly ambushed by a mugger at gun point or something. There isn't much of anything you can do in a situation like that. However, there are plenty of other circumstances where a firearm can be legitimately used to defend oneself or somebody else. Many confrontations are solved without a shot fired, brandishing a firearm is often the only thing you need to do. Surely, you can't win them all, armed or not, but it doesn't justify denying a person a means to defend themselves.

As for Mexico, that's a good reason to better secure the border. It isn't justification to strip the freedoms of it's citizens to appease a foreign government.

But is such an ends justified for the cost of the means?
So Mr. Probability managed to stop an attacker. He also shot a few family members, got his gun stolen then went insane and shot somebody else.

So many things can go wrong, do you really think it outweighs the fact that if you wave a gun in a criminals face, there is a good chance they will run off?

[Andir]

Guns can deter crime, it's proven in statistics.  If you are a responsible/practiced owner, the outcome is heavily weighed in your favor unless the criminal is a practiced shooter as well.  And since most criminals are not going to head down to the local range or register their guns.... I doubt they get much practice.

Whoa, that is a big assertion! Prove it!
Show that guns in the hands of civilians cause a majority trend towards lower crime rates.

John R. Lott studied it and published the results, here's an interview with some questions:  http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
"Gun Control and Economic Discrimination" - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Winter 1995)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
... it's not hard to find these...

And since most criminals are not going to head down to the local range or register their guns.... I doubt they get much practice.

I like this bit most.  It seems to assume that criminals are a completely different species that are too lazy or stupid to learn how to use guns properly.

Legal handgun owners are not as afraid to openly practice, use, and compete.  Some thug that picks up a gun at the local pawn shop to do a job is not as likely to so the same.

The main problem is that this is a rural vs urban problem. Sheb pretty much admitted that there aren't fields as big as Nadaka is talking about in Belgium. In America, fields that large, and larger exist in abundance. There is a large number of people who live so far away from urban centres that trying to rely on other people for the defense of your property is unpractical at best. Urban America, in my opinion, could use a hell of a lot more gun control. Rural America needs as much help in the gun department as it can get.

Eh, as much help as they can get?  (That can be taken two ways...)  I think there could be more education, but I think the openness of firearm possession/use on private land is perfect the way it is today.

Education can go a long way in urban neighborhoods as well, but I don't think that laws should be consistent between Detroit and Iowa.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

This is a really stupid argument.

Seconded. Of course fringe arguments will remain fringe arguments if nobody has the courage to challenge the status quo.

(FTR, I don't have a problem with United Statesians liking guns, I understand the cultural and historical reasons for it even if I don't always agree with them (and would sure as hell hate to live in a country where guns are so widespread. But I don't have to, so it doesn't matter.) But the attempts to shut down discussion like MSH's are just plain wrongheaded.)

[Montague]

But is such an ends justified for the cost of the means?
So Mr. Probability managed to stop an attacker. He also shot a few family members, got his gun stolen then went insane and shot somebody else.

So many things can go wrong, do you really think it outweighs the fact that if you wave a gun in a criminals face, there is a good chance they will run off?

It's difficult to measure the net effect. Especially since legal activities are not tracked in crime statistics. I'd say the harm guns cause would often occur anyways. Mr. Probability would use a baseball bat or a car bomb if he was serious about being a metaphorical representative of randomly violent outcomes. The benefits of private firearms is less dramatic, why it's less clear how far reaching the impact is. Such as the degree legally owned firearms serve as deterrents to violent confrontation in the first place, because it isn't reported or statistically tracked. You'd imply there is net harm in it, I'm pretty certain there is a net benefit. Who really knows for sure?

Still, regardless of any utilitarianism philosophy on the subject, I believe people have a fundamental human right to defend themselves. Guns are the means to that end.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But the attempts to shut down discussion like MSH's are just plain wrongheaded.

We. Are going. In circles.

Over and over again.

We should talk about something else because we are not getting anywhere and this isn't the Progressive Gun Law Thread.

[Loud Whispers]

Ever get that odd feel when you tell your family that sheep heart is actually quite tasty, and then they tell you human rights are crap?

[Sheb]

Saying "We should stop talking because we're getting nowhere." is okay, saying "We should stop talking because most Americans support my point of view" isn't. (And it's false, as the polls I sent you showed. So it's like, doubly wrong.)

Montague, I think we have to agree to disagree. I think people got a right to be safe, not a right to defend themselves. And I also think that gun laws (just as income equality and social safety nets) are part of what makes Europe safer than the US, and is thus a good thing.

[Max White]

John R. Lott studied it and published the results, here's an interview with some questions:  http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
"Gun Control and Economic Discrimination" - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Winter 1995)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
... it's not hard to find these...

Ok, so I click the first link, and I find myself in an interview. Ok then, lets see if we can find some real figures...
Nope, nothing. Nothing that would be thought of as a real study. A few numbers stand out, but I can't find where these numbers came from, thus they are worthless. How about a source? Can I find a source?
Well no, and as this is an interview, I wouldn't expect one, but it does cast a shadow of doubt over the usefulness of this page.
Now I'm suspicious of this page, and start to look for tell tail signs of bias. Oh look, on the left hand side of the page is an advert for a book, written by the guy being interviewed. I also can't see to find the name of the interviewer, leaving me to wonder how do I check to make sure it is a real interview?
Any sort of sceptical mind would dismiss this for lack of any merit at all. It is a propaganda site.

Okto the second link! Well look, a newpaper! Not exactly what I would have hoped for, but let's read it anyway to see if they manage to reference any sort of real data. Remember, peoples opinions in newspapers does not make proof.
Well nope, no source. Heart breaking that I am subject to the filtered opinion of a newspaper instead of a real study, but I'm noticing some numbers! Will these be real figures, or just cherry picking to try and make it fit a point of view?
Hmm, it is giving me some base figures from two cities, Washington and Chicago. Do I really trust two cities to form a trend? Well no I do not. It also focuses on a very short time frame after a change in the law, rather than any larger study over many cities over more time. Sorry buddy, but this looks like cherry picking.

I'm dismissing both sites on the grounds on having zero credible scientific value. Can you do better?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Saying "We should stop talking because we're getting nowhere." is okay, saying "We should stop talking because most Americans support my point of view" isn't. (And it's false, as the polls I sent you showed. So it's like, doubly wrong.)

Your poll is about regulation. I said you won't find any meaningful number of Americans who support gun bans. And you won't.

[Nadaka]

But the attempts to shut down discussion like MSH's are just plain wrongheaded.

We. Are going. In circles.

Over and over again.

We should talk about something else because we are not getting anywhere and this isn't the Progressive Gun Law Thread.

Gun law is an area where some progressives strongly disagree with each other, even citing progressiveness as the core of their contradictory beliefs.

[Sheb]

When did we talk about gun bans? You're burning a straw man here MSH. (Except if you're talking about assault weapons bans. Which the same polls suggest most Americans favor.)

[Andir]

Seconded. Of course fringe arguments will remain fringe arguments if nobody has the courage to challenge the status quo.

(FTR, I don't have a problem with United Statesians liking guns, I understand the cultural and historical reasons for it even if I don't always agree with them (and would sure as hell hate to live in a country where guns are so widespread. But I don't have to, so it doesn't matter.) But the attempts to shut down discussion like MSH's are just plain wrongheaded.)

Thanks for understanding.  Though... I'd like to clear up something.  I don't understand why you'd hate to live here.  It's not like you're pressured to use a gun daily (I use mine, for fun, about once a month over the year, mostly in the summer months) and it's not like people are afraid to walk the streets at night (I don't fear being shot... pretty much ever.)  But I respect your choice to live in a society that has stronger restrictions.  I actually think it's awesome that different counties have different levels of law, but I don't understand why everyone wants to push to be the same.

I actually do support ending this discussion though, it's old/tired and been done a million times.  So I'm bowing out.  We have our laws, the rest of the world has their laws.  We all get along to some extent, and it's not like our laws are hurting your laws.  It's helpful to have varying platforms to compare and I don't think guns are a top priority today with our debt climbing, unemployment, etc.

[Frumple]

When did we talk about gun bans?

... the constant reference to the removal of in-home civilian gun ownership? Regulating firearms to the gunrange is by and large banning them for personal use. That will not happen in the US any time in the next few dozen years, at minimum.

[Virex]

When did we talk about gun bans? You're burning a straw man here MSH. (Except if you're talking about assault weapons bans. Which the same polls suggest most Americans favor.)

Which is strange, considering the second amendment. Assault weapons, as others have pointed out, are not useful for crime. But, they are very useful for overthrowing governments. The same is true for anti-tank weapons and mortars. So, to stay in the spirit of the second amendment, it's handguns that should be banned (as they serve little purpose during a revolution but are a big hazard during peace time), not assault weapons. One could even argue that assault weapons are a better detriment then handguns, while handguns are more useful for criminal acts.