Gun Control Anyone?

[shiny!]

Re: Here it comes...

Should a tyrant emerge, we could organize many people with 10 rounds each and get the job done.

Go try that right now. Put out the word that you're organizing a citizen's militia. See how long you have to wait before Federal agents are breaking down your door.

[skeeter]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I did wonder if the debate here was any less irrational.

I love this chart. Seriously. So lets see:
- out of 10 items 5 are self inflicted death (assuming unintentional poisoning does not include your wife mistaking the rat poison for arabica blend).
- Driving accidents, seriously ?
- Medical errors... having complicated surgery or like, is usually the victims choice so it is either an accident or "self-inflicted".
- Tabacco is in fact the only item on the list apart from homocides where your action causes harm to others and you know it. For this reason, it is widely regulated and in most countries you are not allowed to smoke in any public places.

So the purpose of the chart is to show: A lot of people die, therefore (machine) gun killings are not that bad in the grand scheme. That is not just silly, it is pretty disgusting.

[Polish_Silver]

Political Valence of Gun Control

When I was growing up, the gun control idea was that pistols were the problem,
because they would be used in "crime of passion" murders, but not for hunting.
Now the problem is "assault rifles".

I have mixed feelings about gun control, but the people who want it need to be more logical and consistent in their propositions. There is a big wave of publicity after an unusual event.
Formerly, it was presidential assasinations, now it is school shootings. I don't think gun control will do much about either of these, since perpetrators are not acting on "spur of the moment" but make efforts to prepare these crimes, which could include getting illegal guns.

Neither school shootings or asassinations is significant as a public safety issue. They just do not happen often enough. What is a legitimate public safety issue is murders, especially "crimes of passion". These might be just shouting matches if neither party can get a gun.

The gun control people also need to decide if they want the 2nd amendment repealed, or what kind of gun control is consistent with the 2nd amendment.

Personal gun ownership was not "free for all" , even in the 1600's. You had to be "citizen in good standing" to own a firearm---somewhat comparable to the background checks required today.

We have a big inconsistency in that background checks are not required to purchase guns at shows, which makes no sense at all.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Here it comes...

Go try that right now. Put out the word that you're organizing a citizen's militia. See how long you have to wait before Federal agents are breaking down your door.

We're getting way into hypothetical territory here, but I'll play along.
Our 2nd amendment rights presuppose that the urge to revolution would be widespread, that the citizens bearing arms will act together in large groups. Mr. Timothy Mcveigh in 1995 seemed to sincerely believe that the time for revolution had arrived, but he found himself standing alone, and was executed for his efforts.
When one fails at a coup d'etat, a revolution, or a mutiny, one pays with their life. It has always been so.

[shiny!]

Re: Political Valence of Gun Control

When I was growing up, the gun control idea was that pistols were the problem,
because they would be used in "crime of passion" murders, but not for hunting.
Now the problem is "assault rifles".

I have mixed feelings about gun control, but the people who want it need to be more logical and consistent in their propositions. There is a big wave of publicity after an unusual event.
Formerly, it was presidential assasinations, now it is school shootings. I don't think gun control will do much about either of these, since perpetrators are not acting on "spur of the moment" but make efforts to prepare these crimes, which could include getting illegal guns.

Neither school shootings or asassinations is significant as a public safety issue. They just do not happen often enough. What is a legitimate public safety issue is murders, especially "crimes of passion". These might be just shouting matches if neither party can get a gun.

The gun control people also need to decide if they want the 2nd amendment repealed, or what kind of gun control is consistent with the 2nd amendment.

Personal gun ownership was not "free for all" , even in the 1600's. You had to be "citizen in good standing" to own a firearm---somewhat comparable to the background checks required today.

We have a big inconsistency in that background checks are not required to purchase guns at shows, which makes no sense at all.

Agree that they keep changing their arguments as to what kind of gun constitutes the real risk. In the U.S., I believe the early gun control laws of the last century were enacted in the Deep South to keep blacks from arming themselves in self-defense against the KKK.

Later, the argument was against Saturday Night Specials.... the only type of gun affordable enough for poor people in the ghettos to buy for self-defense.

The vast majority of shooting deaths are drug/crime/gang related. For some reason criminals are notorious for not obeying gun laws. It's such a relief that all these new gun laws will finally keep us safe from criminals.

[Polish_Silver]

Homicides: no gun needed! Swimming pools vs guns as hazard.

Very interesting to me is that the "non-gun" homicides are bigger than the "gun homicides". If true,
it cuts out most of the impetus for more gun control.

There's a section in "freakonomics" about guns. To protect thier children, some parents keep their children from visiting a house that has a gun in it. It turns out that there is a much higher probability (>10X) of a child drowning in a pool than being shot by a gun. So the parents should keep thier children away from houses with swimming pools.

[leegs]

Re: Homicides: no gun needed! Swimming pools vs guns as hazard.

Very interesting to me is that the "non-gun" homicides are bigger than the "gun homicides". If true,
it cuts out most of the impetus for more gun control.

There's a section in "freakonomics" about guns. To protect thier children, some parents keep their children from visiting a house that has a gun in it. It turns out that there is a much higher probability (>10X) of a child drowning in a pool than being shot by a gun. So the parents should keep thier children away from houses with swimming pools.

I think that chart might be incorrect. I just did some googling, and according to the CDC as per this link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm the total number of homicides is 16000, of which 11000 involve firearms.

[LorenS]

Re: Homicides: no gun needed! Swimming pools vs guns as hazard.

I think that chart might be incorrect. I just did some googling, and according to the CDC as per this link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm the total number of homicides is 16000, of which 11000 involve firearms.

Some of this statistical "analysis" is really nonsense. Guns are used in crime for two reasons, first because they work and second because they are available. If guns went away crime would not. Currently guns are used to both prevent and to commit crime. The left wing politicians want to eliminate FIRST the guns used to prevent crime, they HOPE that maybe (if they are sincere) that the guns used to commit crimes might go away later.

Most arson fires are started by lighters. If we ban lighters matches would be more popular amongst arsonists. Most arson is accelerated with gasoline. If we ban gasoline Bacardi 151 might take over. Banning lighters would have almost no impact on arson, only LIGHTER arson.

Most holes are drilled with cordless drills. If we ban cordless drills people would corded drills more. If someone is drilling a hole in your kneecap do you really care if it's a cordless drill? What if they use a sledge hammer instead? Is that OK.

Obama and his drones are only interested in GUN crime because they are only interested in banning guns. It really is that simple.

[leegs]

Re: Homicides: no gun needed! Swimming pools vs guns as hazard.

Some of this statistical "analysis" is really nonsense. Guns are used in crime for two reasons, first because they work and second because they are available. If guns went away crime would not. Currently guns are used to both prevent and to commit crime. The left wing politicians want to eliminate FIRST the guns used to prevent crime, they HOPE that maybe (if they are sincere) that the guns used to commit crimes might go away later.

Most arson fires are started by lighters. If we ban lighters matches would be more popular amongst arsonists. Most arson is accelerated with gasoline. If we ban gasoline Bacardi 151 might take over. Banning lighters would have almost no impact on arson, only LIGHTER arson.

Most holes are drilled with cordless drills. If we ban cordless drills people would corded drills more. If someone is drilling a hole in your kneecap do you really care if it's a cordless drill? What if they use a sledge hammer instead? Is that OK.

Obama and his drones are only interested in GUN crime because they are only interested in banning guns. It really is that simple.

Everything you write is totally irrelevant to my statement. When I saw the chart I had the same reaction as Polish Silver, namely 'Very interesting to me is that the "non-gun" homicides are bigger than the "gun homicides". If true,it cuts out most of the impetus for more gun control.'

I thought it would be a useful fact if true. However I've learned to distrust all glossy high-production graphics that purport to prove a point using some 'facts', regardless of the issue or the side of the issue. So I checked this one, and like most of them, it is not reliable.

FWIW I am not in favor of gun control, and I own guns. I welcome any information that is useful in presenting my point of view on the subject. However I am burdened by the fact that I like my information to be true and accurate. It must be convenient to be able to be so passionate in presenting a point of view that unsubstantiated opinion is all you need.

EDIT: I can't help but add that as someone who cares about 'my side' making coherent arguments, yours are pretty weak. In fact cordless drills do lead to many more hole being drilled than if only corded drills were available. I'm a carpenter, and I use my cordless drill and screws constantly. If I had to plug in a drill, you can bet I would use many more nails, and would also be somewhat less productive as a result. In terms of drilling kneecaps, having to rely on a corded drill would be a real handicap.

Regarding arson - bicardi 151 as a substitute for gasoline? We must be talking some wealthy arsonists.

Even the argument that the availability of guns has no affect on murder is IMO suspicious. I 'believe' that some significant number of murders are 'crimes of passion' that are facilitated by the tremendous utility of guns. If the perpetrator had to go get a gun from his 'criminal accomplices', he'd probably cool off in many cases. Of course the foregoing is just an opinion.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I think about most gun owners who are poorly trained and also subject to being quite upset in a high emotion defensive situation.

The simple truth is that the potential that they'll miss and run out of bullets is not small.

One incredibly important aspect largely missing from the debate is training.

There is a LOT of quite relevant firearms and stress inoculation training going on for citizens, law enforcement, and the military.......that's GOOD.

The bad news is there should be more of it, for more people, on an ongoing basis(as stated previously firearms skill is partially perishable).

[aaron]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

If there were a national training company with a lobby and wall street backing, you can bet your ass it would be discussed and mandated. Wall Street really dropped the ball on this investing opportunity. I think they are losing their touch.

[reggie]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

One incredibly important aspect largely missing from the debate is training.

There is a LOT of quite relevant firearms and stress inoculation training going on for citizens, law enforcement, and the military.......that's GOOD.

The bad news is there should be more of it, for more people, on an ongoing basis(as stated previously firearms skill is partially perishable).

I don't have a problem with training services being offered, but PLEASE don't go down the road of making it manditory, because then you bring in the Government to regulate it, and then we're back on an incredibly slippery slope.

[Polish_Silver]

black panthers way ahead of you!

Agree that they keep changing their arguments as to what kind of gun constitutes the real risk. In the U.S., I believe the early gun control laws of the last century were enacted in the Deep South to keep blacks from arming themselves in self-defense against the KKK.

Later, the argument was against Saturday Night Specials.... the only type of gun affordable enough for poor people in the ghettos to buy for self-defense.

The vast majority of shooting deaths are drug/crime/gang related. For some reason criminals are notorious for not obeying gun laws. It's such a relief that all these new gun laws will finally keep us safe from criminals.

There was an article to this affect in the atlantic monthly about two years ago. It was about the legal history of gun control. The main idea was that the black panthers were the true fathers of the modern gun freedom movement. He was emphasizing blacks protecting themselves, partly against police. Huey Newton would keep a loaded rifle in his car and follow police cars around. When they stopped someone, he would shout legal advice to the detainee. This was perfectly legal. The police could not legally get him to leave or stop talking to the detainee. Newton had studied law and knew what he could get away with.

You have to like a guy like that!

But the Black Panthers have somewhat in common with todays "gun head". Both are skeptical that the system is fair. Both believe that the individual has the right to protect themselves with the threat of deadly force.

I'm not sure if the black panthers solved any problems with thier threats of violence. But I'm sure it got people thinking!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I don't have a problem with training services being offered, but PLEASE don't go down the road of making it manditory, because then you bring in the Government to regulate it, and then we're back on an incredibly slippery slope.

I'm not advocating mandatory anything.

But I would be lying if I said I was adequately prepared to use a firearm a LONG time ago when I first carried one concealed and legally.

Fast forward a few decades, a lot of rounds, a lot of training, and a lot of work carrying(and teaching the use of) firearms later and I still consider myself a relative novice.

To me, the two perception shaping adjustments I would like to see in the perpetual gun control debate are:

1.) The 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is the deterrence of tyranny.

2.) Police and the Military do not possess a patent/trademark or any other intellectual property or monopoly on excellence when it comes to the application of tools like firearms.

We need to destroy the extremely dangerous myth that law enforcement and the military are chocker full of combat marksmanship expertise.

While the military has gained VERY considerable combat experience at the individual and sub unit level that is very relevant to this conversation, those personnel still represent a mere fraction of personnel in uniform...and the military has no combat marksmanship role in the US due to Posse Comitatus.

The Police would have a mere fraction of the combat marksmanship subject matter expertise as the US military(although the more competent will often attend the same private sector shooting schools/courses).

The VAST majority of law enforcement and military are only competent to NOT accidentally shoot someone, after all and statistically speaking....half are below average performers.

IF the narrative is that private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms(and the blunt truth is that many private citizens are idiots), then the narrative needs to incorporate the absolute 100% fact that many in the law enforcement community and the military are lucky NOT to accidentally kill themselves or others with their firearms.

Law Enforcement and the Military are not annointed with special firearms holy water or provided top secret information on how to shoot straight.

I believe in honesty........a lot of private citizens are total muppets when it comes to firearms.....but democracy is messy...and that mess includes some people unfortunately blowing their own and other peoples brains out accidentally or illegally.

Training...highly perishable training...is incredibly important to safe weapons handling.

Especially if someone is actually compelled to use a firearm legally against a naughty person under considerable stress.

And a traditional firearms range environment/mentality is not conducive to the application of firearms in the real world.

While I am very uncomfortable with government regulated firearms training I know for a FACT that effective firearms training is typically cited as THE reason for success in real world gunfight reviews.

It would be a lie to state otherwise.

[LorenS]

Re: Homicides: no gun needed! Swimming pools vs guns as hazard.

Even the argument that the availability of guns has no affect on murder is IMO suspicious. I 'believe' that some significant number of murders are 'crimes of passion' that are facilitated by the tremendous utility of guns. If the perpetrator had to go get a gun from his 'criminal accomplices', he'd probably cool off in many cases. Of course the foregoing is just an opinion.

You want to think that "crimes of passion" only happen with a gun handy. Why?

In my home county there were 3 homicides last year. Two were comitted with knives - they were crimes of passion. The single gun death was a SELF DEFENSE, yet it was classivied as a "gun homicide" for the statistics. That same year there were 26 traffic deaths by the way.

Folks want to point out how many crimes are committed with guns, no one mentiones the ones prevented by guns and they also pretend that the gun crimes would just evaporate if guns were not so available. My point is that if one weapons is missing people will reach for another, the passion doesn't just go away.

Eveyone wants to glorify England and Canada, but ignore Mexico.

Maybe my arguments are weak, but it's not like I can spend all day in research.