#BlameJD – JD_2020's Blog!
@JD_2020 on Twitter
On Stricter Gun Laws…
Posted by on July 25, 2012
Alright, here’s the deal. I understand this is a hyper-polarizing issue, so please keep the comments clean and mature, and above all else, productive. I mean no disrespect to anybody affected by a gun-related crimes. But I sincerely want to make my position known, and yearn to help improve the human race through thought reason and rationality – NOT fear.
We do NOT need stricter gun laws, nor would they result in less crime. Actually, making owning guns illegal would just make more upstanding citizens suddenly become criminals… Crime would increase instantly, intrinsically, because of this simple fact. Seriously, if guns were illegal in my country, I’d be a criminal because I would still find a way to get them. And I’m not a crazy murderous fuck, now am I?
I do not have this opinion out of blind partisanship. I am a registered Democrat, and mostly Liberal in my opinions on world politics. I always form my opinions through a process of deducing logic from careful thought, research, and evidence. In most cases this tends to align with liberal Democratic views, hence that’s my party, but I (unlike most) do not tow the party line “just because”, nor do I absorb and regurgitate other people’s words because I was lazy to do my own homework.
And I know that sounds a bit condescending, but it’s the truth. Don’t label me condescending just because I’m pointing out a sad truth – I wish desperately I were being truly condescending, because that would mean most of the world thinks rationally, and I’m just full of myself. But no, most of the world are followers. The blind leading the blind.
Another truth: Americans (and the world) tend to overreact to isolated incidents of mass crime. It’s because we as a species are fearful creatures. We saw this after 9/11 – Some bad people used airplanes – ONCE, ever in history – to commit a heinous crime, and what did we do? We racked up exorbitant costs creating agencies and placing travel regulations that further restricted our freedoms, and threw our nation into fear and turmoil. Let’s not get too far off-track, though. But I’ll pose a rhetorical question: Was there ever even an attempt of a similar crime since then? Did all this security successfully prevent a single thing? No. Not once. It was 100% a complete waste. You so much as raise your voice on a plane these days, and passengers will subdue you before letting something like that happen again, no TSA needed.
But back on track….
Every time there is a mass shooting, the world revisits gun laws. Should people own guns? Just how easy is it to purchase guns? The problem is, most of the people that talk about this issue have no idea what they are talking about, yet their voices are heard, and influence perceptions just as much as those who are informed. It leads to this terribly counter-productive degradation of rational thought that is then passed down generation to generation, and represents a measured de-evolution of society. It’s scary, way scarier than the chance I get mowed down by a maniac with a gun, let me tell ya’.
I don’t mean that in an arrogant way either. Allow me to explain: I just got done arguing with a person who believes gun laws should be more strict. Earlier today I had one with a person who thinks that nobody should own a gun, and they should be made completely illegal. Both of these people actually believe their words, despite the fact that both of them have never owned a gun, and have no idea what the purchasing process is like, nor had any idea what classifies a “military grade” weapon. They both thought “seni-automatic” means full-auto for crying out loud. So they were arguing for something they actually knew nothing about. How could those be their own thoughts? It’s not possible. They, like many others, were simply reciting someone else’s rhetoric.
First, let’s go over what I have to do to buy a gun:
- Must provide proof of residency in the county in which I am purchasing.
- Must have a valid photo ID issued in the state I am purchasing and have residency.
- Must submit to and pay for a background check upon every purchased firearm.
- Must submit my fingerprints upon every purchase.
- Must wait 10 days from point-of-sale, to actually picking up my firearm.
- Restricted to only one firearm purchase per grace period.
- Cannot purchase magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds.
- Cannot have detachable magazines on rifles (must use a “bullet button”).
- Cannot purchase fully-automatic weapons without special permit (this is true of most states).
Now you tell me (perhaps in the comments below) – How exactly do you suggest we make that process more strict, aside from making it illegal altogether? And just how long and how much energy should we spend trying to figure that out?
People who argue gun laws should be more strict often times don’t understand just how strict they already are. It’s illegal to carry a loaded firearm in public in many states. It’s illegal to carry a loaded weapon concealed in all (or almost all) states without a special permit. It’s illegal to carry an UN-LOADED weapon in the open in some states (and/or just plain stupid, a good way to get shot by a cop with an itchy trigger-finger).
Now, in Aurora, CO, what Holmes did was very illegal. He still did it. You can’t purchase fire bombs in stores, they are very illegal. It didn’t stop him from finding a way to get or make them, did it? Why do people think had guns been illegal, he wouldn’t have just found some other way (on the black market, for example) to obtain what he wanted; the same way he got materials for his bombs? Do you really think what happened wouldn’t have happened the same exact way?? Just follow your own logic here; if that’s what you believe (guns being illegal would have stopped him from going on a shooting spree), then fire bombs should have never been rigged in his apartment. But there were… By your own logic, you have just contradicted yourself (“you” directed only at those supporting the argument I am referring to here).
Crazy people will be crazy, regardless of the law. Criminals are notorious for breaking the law. Why would you think bad or crazy people would abide by the law if it said “You cannot own guns”? Who could possibly argue or believe that?
But people do. They rely on “statistics” and “facts” as word of God, and throw logic to the wind in the process. Like studies that show gun-related crime rates in other countries are far less, per capita, than the United States. Many people think “It’s because they have stricter gun laws, or guns are illegal.” But they aren’t taking into consideration that their conclusion is inherently flawed. Maybe it’s not their strict gun laws; maybe it’s the better healthcare they have to treat mentally ill people. Maybe it’s the lower unemployment rate, so less of their citizens have to resort to crime to survive. Maybe it’s the environment in which they are raised (different media, different multimedia, etc). Maybe it’s a combination of all those things, and more. There are so many variables to consider, that no one study has ever (or ever will) adequately cover.
So to think that stricter gun laws – alone – would suddenly make America’s gun-related crimes decrease is an incredibly presumptuous idea, one backed by no truly scientifically sound data. It’s no better than a hunch at that point. I’m not willing to sacrifice freedoms for a hunch.
Now at the risk of sounding like a radical, I want to mention the most basic, fundamental fact that motivates me the most: It is my right and responsibility to bear arms. It is how my country was founded; citizens taking up arms against an oppressive government. Hell, by all indications, my current-day modern government may be encroaching dangerously on oppressive territory yet again. What if one day they are as-oppressive, if not more oppressive, than Great Britain used to be back in the 1700′s when they owned America? How will I secure my childrens’ futures if I sit back today and allow my government to systematically disarm me and my fellow citizens?
It would be terribly irresponsible of me, wouldn’t it? Can you definitively say the United States will never have a period of revolution ever again? I know I can’t say that. Imagine if back in the 1700′s, Great Britain made owning firearms illegal. Boy our world would be different today, wouldn’t it? Or would it… Maybe we’d have still found ways to get our firearms, and revolt. Whatever you believe in this regard, I’ve made my point!! Think about it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a crazed fanatic screaming out for revolution against my government – I am specifically *not* saying that. I am simply trying to make a point. Both on a practical level (bad people will continue being bad, even if it means breaking the law to do so), and on a less practical level (I may need to revolt against my oppressive government one day) – in both cases, the argument seems pretty logical here. Restricting gun laws are counter-productive, and only serve to hurt us, with very little chance of helping in the big picture.
Now, for some statistics since advocates of stricter gun laws seem to like to cite them so often….
Add up the aggregate gun-related deaths across America, including mass shootings, all-time. And it still doesn’t even come close to other deaths caused by much more common, more easy-to-obtain substances. Alcohol and Tobacco DEMOLISH the # of deaths by several orders of magnitude (add several zeroes on the end of the Gun deaths, and you’ll get Alcohol and Tobacco). Apples and Oranges you say? Alcohol and Tobacco aren’t violent crimes, those deaths are almost always accidental so it’s different. Okay then: There are almost as many Knife-related murders in the U.S. each year as Guns (I mean it, look it up). It’s like ~10,000 knife deaths, ~12,000 gun deaths annually, according to several reports. Should we outlaw knives, too? What about forks and spoons?
I am intentionally not sourcing my statistics for two reasons. One: I am trying to encourage positive behavior reform. If you want to argue with me, look up the facts yourself. You’ll find out your assumptions are probably wrong, and I succeed in improving your contributions to society’s current affairs. And two: No one report has it all, and every report tends to contradict another. The people who create the reports do it for a reason, and very few independent studies are truly independent (if you see where their funding comes from, you can get an idea for their agenda).
Nevertheless, I don’t want to be publicly humiliated by stating wrong things, so I’m not just blowing smoke here despite not citing sources.
Yes, people will do bad things. But do you really want to live your life in fear? Just how much freedom are you willing to sacrifice under the tattered veil of safety? Do you really believe making guns illegal (the strictest form of gun law) will stop bad people from being bad people? Why would that make you feel safer? I feel safer because I am armed. If I were in that situation, I’d have been able to fight back against the crazed gunman and save lives – possibly my own. That makes me feel safe. The real crazy thing here is, if I were carrying a concealed weapon illegally and killed Holmes before he murdered a dozen people in that theater, I’d be the one going to jail right now the way our gun law is currently written. To make that law even stricter would just mean to make that circumstance even crazier.
So that said, I’d like to hear your thoughts. Did I change anybody’s mind with this post? Please, I beg you, don’t dig your heels into the ground stubbornly just because your parents think something, or because you heard it on CNN, or because you’re a Liberal (which I am, by the way). Please think about what I’ve said here, do some research of your own if you don’t believe me, and really think rationally about this issue. Do you really believe more reform to gun laws is what we need to be laser-focused on right now? Of all the issues in our country (and world), is that the thing that needs our primary attention? Or any attention, for that matter, before the rest?
‘Nuff said!
I agree for the most part with everything but I think your bashing of the stricter regs on travel to be a little over the top. Yes they are a pain in the ass but truthfully they really aren’t THAT bad. As for the organizations being brought together to fight terrorism I don’t think we will ever know what they have and have not foiled for the simple fact if that info was made public the enemy that intends to do us harm may glean information on how they are being tracked and found out. Also it may send the general public into a total tizzy. True it is a double edge sword since making the public more of aware of possible plots or attempted attacks may have them realize that there are forces in the world that do want to continue to hurt us. Again a double edge sword. My question on this whole affair is the two perp theory. How did this out of work individual get his hands on the amount of hardware he did. Also eyewitness accounts talk of another individual in the theater. Where is the info on that?
Man, with all due respect, I believe terrorism as government and media sell it, is totally false. Just my point of view.
Please take a look at this video, done by an skeptical guy, about the 9/11 events. It’s shocking.
Very well made article. For me, I believe we should stay the way we are now with gun laws, not making them easier or harder to obtain. You had many valid points on how people say they want stricter gun laws but they themselves have not researched it well enough to have make a good enough argument. Overall I enjoyed this read and I feel I have become a little bit better suited for an argument about gun laws.
Oh and the gun laws we have are enough. We just need to enforce what we have.
Josh,
I totally agree with you. I also believe we shouldn’t be living in fear, and that bad people will do bad things regardless of the law.
This incident would have happened whether the guns were legal or not. Guns by itself aren’t the issue here, the real issue is why happened in the first place. Why do we (as worldwide society, since I’m not an american citizen) have this sociopaths? How did we (parents, friends, co-workers, brothers, counselors, teachers, etc) failed to this young kid, that eventually led him to do this? How can we prevent the origin, not the tools?.
Again, outlawing stuff is not the solution. We had an excellent example with the prohibition, and the lessons society should have learned. We have the same issue with drugs right now, where violence is escalating because as long as people want it, they will get it, legally or not.
I believe institutional fear is blinding people from reasoning, and banning stuff is their way to silence that internal fear.
But its all a lie. Banning stuff won’t stop stuff from being acquired and used.
Thanks for an excellent analysis Josh.
Jorge
9/11 was a ‘false flag’ operation by the American government for an illegal invasion of another country, to force democracy on them and secure resources i.e. oil. Iraq, Libya, aiding terrorists (you fought against) trying to oust Assad in Syria and then onto the final piece of the jigsaw… Iran.
In England the only people with guns are the military and police. No member of the public should own a gun.
But in England you can own certain guns, as a citizen you can have rifles or a single shot or over under shotgun. Yes these are mainly used for hunting or sports. But I can’t imagine having the govt with all the guns, and no way to defend yourself in case something happened.
It’s sad how most people uphold this shooting like it happens daily. This event in Aurora, Colorado was a rare occurance at best at should be treated as such. It shouldn’t be a way for the bureaucrats in DC to gain political prowess in the voting booths to gain votes nor should the argument of firearms be upheld just because this freak accident involved firearms. People in general should look up their local gun laws and should consider bearing arms, even knowing about guns and firearm law is benifical, knowledge is power. Sure guns are dangerous but so is a brick, just because I would hypothetically kill 12 people with a brick means bricks should be brought into question and their legal status as well? No it truly matters who is shooting the gun or swinging the damn brick. If I were personally to do anything since this event to gun law I would encourage people to legally purchase a firearm and carry it legally for self defense. Josh great topic, some are to ignorant and go purly off what is fed to them, thats todays day and age and mass media at its finest. If people were more educated in firearms in general maybe just maybe we all wouldn’t be so afraid.
In Rochester, ny I have to give 3 character references to get a permit before I am even allowed to touch a handgun in a store. The permit process can take upto a year to be approved. And cost close to $200 before you purchase your pistol, and submit to another background check at the store, out of your pocket. Plus finger prints, and I have to register the gun on my permit. But if you look at most gun crimes in the us, they are not committed with legally uptained guns. Good article, I don’t need a permit for shotguns or semi auto rifles, so I will just stock up on them.
bottom line, civilians shouldn’t have access to semi-automatic assault riffles. is semi and fully really that big of a difference when you’re getting shot in the face?
i don’t think civilians should own guns at all. i bet you, if all guns were banned there would be a lot less of this crap going on. no i don’t have stats. i don’t care. get a new hobby.
Buddy. I could drive 10 miles to a bad part of L.A. and purchase an illegal firearm with the serial number filed off RIGHT THIS MOMENT, for cheaper than at a legal gun store. No background check whatsoever.
And that’s RIGHT NOW – while purchasing guns IS legal. That’s only going to become more prevalent if guns are made illegal.
How do you not comprehend that? How can you POSSIBLY believe gun crimes will disappear by making them illegal. It blows. my. mind.
do it.
seriously, the fact that he purchased these guns legally makes it so much worse. why can’t you comprehend that?
Is this like an ego thing? Why is him buying them legally worse? In what universe do you come from?? The outcome is EXACTLY the same as if they were acquired illegally (which they would have been had guns were outlawed….). The same number of people would have died.
Only difference would have been some back-alley dealer would have gotten paid for the guns as opposed to a tax-paying shop.
Indeed it does. The legalality of purchasing guns is the all problem. No one in their right mind can tell me that if guns were outlawed the same amount of people will own guns!
@Zeroy – Nobody is saying the same amount of people will own guns if they are illegal. I’m saying far less upstanding, law-abiding citizens will own guns, at the expense of a false notion that it will somehow decrease the number of criminals with guns.
As I’ve said, criminals break laws. It’s their job to break laws. They won’t care if they have to buy a gun illegally if they know they’re about to commit a crime greater than buying a gun illegally (e.g. rob a bank, go on a shooting spree, etc).
How can you argue against that?
and it doesn’t matter if it’s a rare occurrence. it shouldn’t happen at all.
People can’t comprehend the simplicity that as soon as the government would take every single gun of ours there would obviously be away for criminals to illegally obtain them. Adding to the crime rates. It truly is sad to see how ignorant and intolerent people are of firearms just because they do not understand the 2nd amendment.
@Patrick
Because people can’t stab eachother or beat eachother? Even if guns were illegal there would still be violent crimes. 99.9% of people who own guns in the U.S. will never use them for crime.
how can you compare a knife and a fist to an assault rifle? i bet a lot of family members WISH that guy only had a knife.
My point was that there will still be murders. More people die in car accidents than from guns, should we outlaw cars too then?
on second thought, everyone should an assault riffle under their bed. that would be sweet. thanks guys!
you know, for when shit goes down.
Hi JD, I think we were at crossed purposes on Twitter earlier today. Given I seem to have been referred to in the above post I’d like to share my views, if that’s ok.
First up – you repeatedly say I am uninformed and need to do my research, and seem to imply that because my opinions differ from yours that they are wrong and/or invalid. I take issue with both points.
Firstly: you told me on Twitter and reiterated in this post that the AR-15 is actually semi-auto not full auto. I never called it auto. I know it’s semi-auto and never called it otherwise – you’re correcting me on something I never said and calling me uninformed as a result.
“They both thought “seni-automatic” means full-auto for crying out loud” – no I didn’t.
“So they were arguing for something they actually knew nothing about.” – no I wasn’t.
I described the weapon as “military” on Twitter and you helpfully pointed out that it varies from the military version. I concede this was clumsy phrasing and had I had the space I would have described it as “military-style” – I am aware this is not a military issue weapon. Both the NYT article you linked me to and the other hundreds of articles I’ve seen compare it to the similar but full auto military version and I am fully aware of the difference.
We’re arguing semantics here but it’s a moot point anyway – from all reports it can fire 50+ rounds per minute, which in my view is too much for a weapon so readily obtainable.
Which brings me to how uninformed I am for not knowing how hard it is to buy a gun in the US. But it’s still a lot easier than many other jurisdictions. From your list I take it that any US citizen (or permanent resident) over 18 with a photo ID and no criminal history is, at any given point, 10 days away from legally owning a gun. Provided they keep a clean sheet they can buy gun after gun after gun with a grace period in between and, as best I can tell, as much ammo as they want – all without raising an eyebrow. As a non-US resident I find this frightening.
You say: “Now you tell me (perhaps in the comments below) – How exactly do you suggest we make that process more strict, aside from making it illegal altogether?” – well for example: limit the type and number of weapons an individual can purchase. More strictly monitor ammunition purchases. Keep a national register of gun purchasers. Increase the waiting period from the farcically short 10 days. Submit to a mental health check before being granted a gun licence.
Now I’m not saying the US should adopt all or any of these – they are simply examples of things that would make the process more strict without making it illegal. And might just save a few lives.
You refer to the post 9/11 hysteria and flight security: “Was there ever even an attempt of a similar crime since then? Did all this security successfully prevent a single thing? No. Not once. It was 100% a complete waste.” What are you basing this on? You keep insisting on using logic and research – what logic and research was involved in this comment? How on earth would you know there’s never been another attempt? Maybe all these preventative measures stopped a raft of follow up hijackings? Or maybe they didn’t – but to claim you know otherwise is a falsehood and completely illogical.
You say “making owning guns illegal would just make more upstanding citizens suddenly become criminals… Crime would increase instantly, intrinsically, because of this simple fact.” To suddenly make owning a firearm retrospectively illegal would be completely illogical and arguing against it is just as illogical. Prospectively tightening regulations is a completely different matter and one worth debating.
You say “Both of these people actually believe their words, despite the fact that both of them have never owned a gun” – so only people who have owned a gun can have an opinion? Should the debate over legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana only be conducted among pot smokers? Should the debate over gay marriage only be conducted by those who are married?
Yourself, and many other gun owners, argue that the criminals will get guns anyway so why ban the law abiding folk from defending themselves. It is a fair point and don’t completely disagree. Those involved in organized crime and criminal and bikie gangs will always have guns. Tougher restrictions won’t stop that. And I’m not arguing to make ownership flat out illegal. But why not at least make it harder for people looking to commit a serious crime and give law enforcement a fighting chance at intervention?
And what about all the suicides (which constitute, I believe, around half of all US gun deaths), the accidental shootings – there are a lot of deaths that might not happen under tighter controls.
After all your preaching about using logic and doing research, you then dismiss out of hand my argument about the comparative statistics of shootings in the US compared to other jurisdictions. As I understand it, shooting deaths are around 100 times higher per capita in the US than the likes of the UK, Australia, Germany, Japan and Canada (down from closer to 300 times, if the West Wing is to be believed). You suggest it may be due to healthcare and unemployment rates. How can you possibly dismiss the actual data out of hand? Surely it’s at least worth debating if lives could be saved? Do you not think gun control might be a slightly greater contributing factor than healthcare?
You point out alcohol and tobacco deaths are far greater gun deaths but you seem to accept that this is a wildly different and unrelated argument so I’ll move on. You then ask if we should outlaw knives. Again you seem to be arguing with the extremists who think all guns should be banned rather than the suggestion of tighter controls. No, knives should not be banned. That doesn’t mean you should be able to carry a flick knife around in public. Your suggestion via Twitter that maybe we should ban spoons to stop people dying of obesity is again highly incongruous with your insistence that this debate be governed by logic and reason.
I don’t even want to get into the debate about the constitution and the second amendment and the right to bear arms and citizen militia. As a non-US citizen it is simply impossible to understand the chest-beating, flag waving fanaticism devoted to a 220 year old scrap of paper. Since the Bill of Rights was written slavery was abolished and women granted the vote, among other progressive social reforms. There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution so it’s hardly set in stone.
Apparently I “rely on “statistics” and “facts” as word of God, and throw logic to the wind in the process”. So my reliance on hard data is illogical, but you seem to be throwing logic to the wind and relying on the second amendment as the “word of God” – to me this seems hypocritical.
At the end of the day – you can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. Just because my opinion is different to yours doesn’t make it wrong. You say you’ve defeated my arguments with logic whilst using highly illogical statements of your own and dismissing out of hand the actual data. There is no right or wrong answer here – there is a huge grey area. No-one thinks you should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle for cash with no ID. And very few support the outright banning of all firearms (as far as I can tell, and I certainly am not arguing that). So we have to find an answer somewhere in between that balances a person’s civil liberties with their basic right to safety. I don’t see why so many gun owners refuse to even accept there is a debate to be had.
Kind regards,
Chris Kennedy (@ck211)
Chris,
I appreciate the thorough reply, but it isn’t very well thought-out. You have fallen into the age-old trap of avoiding points you cannot answer, and twisting the conversation to tailor your points you’re trying to make, but ultimately not saying anything that invalidates (or even addresses) my points.
For example, the 9/11 stuff – that wasn’t my point. But you devoted a huge chunk of text to misdirect readers away from my real point. I don’t want to debate that part with you, though I could. Do you think if an attempt even remotely similar in scale to 9/11 was thwarted, the American government and media wouldn’t have boasted about it? They absolutely would have! The underwear bomb guy was on the news for a WEEK, and ultimately that just proved our how TSA failed, it wasn’t a success story.
The government has been hoping and praying for an opportunity to justify the TSA. It hasn’t come around yet. That’s how I know that.
Back on topic:
I know you’re not necessarily advocating for making guns completely illegal. Let’s say we do what you say (again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge, I wasn’t mis-labeling you) – there already is a national gun registry today, you were proposing something that already exists… But let’s say the other things you propose are implemented, like mental health screening. What does that accomplish? Do you think criminals are going to walk into a gun store and subject themselves to additional screening? No! They’d go on the black market for their weapons.
In the Aurora case, Holmes HAPPENED to get his guns legally. He got his bomb making materials ILLEGALLY, however, demonstrating he was totally willing to go outside the law to acquire what he wanted to do the bad things he was planning. Had guns also been illegal, like the bomb making material, the exact same incident would have occurred. Only this time, headlines would have read “Illegally acquired AR-15.”
How is that any better?
So it’s not any better, but meanwhile the additional gun laws have made it harder for me, a law abiding citizen, to get my weapons for my legal purposes. Makes it less likely I’ll be able to defend myself against acts like this.
Address THAT logic, and not everything else that doesn’t really matter.
Yeah I think we’re still arguing different points. I’m guessing you didn’t do much debating in high school because you keep telling me I’m uninformed, that my argument is not well thought out, and that I’m not being logical – but you’re not backing any of that up. Meanwhile you’re doing exactly what you say I’m doing, which is avoiding my main points and choosing to address the bits that suit your platform. You don’t win a debate by repeatedly insisting your opponent is wrong and that you’ve won, you win it by successfully arguing your points.
I agree the 9/11 stuff is off topic. I only addressed it because I felt your point was illogical. You are most certainly right that if a major hijacking attempt had been thwarted we would have heard all about it. All I was saying there is: who knows how many potential attacks were never attempted due to the extra protocols. Maybe it is zero. But even the government doesn’t know that so there’s no way you or I could.
I’m not sure what points of yours you think I’m avoiding. In the Aurora case: yes, this man was clearly unhinged, had no desire to abide by any laws and even if guns were completely illegal he would have found a way to kill lots of people. Possibly with a bomb that would have killed even more people, who knows. Anders Breivik found a way to shoot 70-odd kids dead in Norway a year ago despite far stricter gun controls there than what the US has. Psychos will always find a way to kill and I do not dispute that. Short of instituting a worldwide ban on making guns, criminals will always find a way to get guns. The Holmes case has prompted the latest debate but does not define it.
My point, which you don’t seem to be able to refute, is this. The US has far more lax gun control regulations than any other comparable jurisdiction (I said this yesterday and you branded me uninformed as a result – if you do some research you will ascertain that this is true), and depending on which statistics you read, the US has anywhere up to or even exceeding a 100 times per capita greater rate of shooting deaths than comparable jurisdictions. These two simple facts, when combined, suggest to me there needs to be a reasoned public discourse as to whether controls need to be looked at. That’s literally all I’m saying. But the gun nuts refuse to consider this debate is even worth having.
You can say “knives/cars/alcohol kill people so why not ban those” – this simply avoids the argument. Those are separate debates. You can say “criminals will get guns anyway” – of course they will. That doesn’t mean tighter controls won’t lead to fewer deaths. You say “how do you know it’s the gun controls, maybe it’s healthcare or unemployment”. I find this argument specious – yes it’s a complicated issue, yes the US is different, culturally and demographically, from other countries, and there could be any number of factors at play. Does this mean it’s not even worth talking about? Of course not. You say “it’s my right under the second amendment” – that’s fine, no-one’s taking the guns away, but we still have to draw the line somewhere, the debate is about where, not if.
I would propose to limit gun ownership to a single handgun – sufficient for personal protection –with a two month wait from purchase to pickup. Those who wish to hunt apply for a separate license, with a longer waiting period, and submit to an interview to determine their eligibility, before being granted access to a shotguns and/or rifle. Still a far smaller impost than the hoops you have to jump through to get a driver’s licence. Lastly I would place a prospective ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons. I’m yet to hear any convincing argument in support of their sale. The second amendment does not declare a right to “keep and bear semi-automatic weapons” and if it’s for hunting – well it’s hardly “sport” if you can unload a full magazine in under a minute
Would these measures save any lives? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably some, but who knows. Is it at least worth talking about? I would say yes. You simply cannot prove that tighter gun controls wouldn’t have a positive effect, and the evidence I can see seems to suggest they would. Therefore, let’s spend some time investigating the matter.
You, and many others, seem to say this debate is not even worth having. And that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, and your voice is far louder than mine in this debate.
But I really don’t see any value in you insisting that simply because my views are different to yours that they are invalid, that I have not done my research, or that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You’re really not doing anything to back that up and there is no right or wrong in matters of opinion.
Your arguing semantics now, desperate to make a point. I am very transparent, and very blunt. I won’t allow that to go un-called-out
.
Should we talk about all the factors that go into the higher rate of violence in America? Yes. But that’s not what our media or politicians are doing. All they’re doing is speaking in hyperbole and catch-phrases.
Obama: “AK-47′s should be in the hands of soldiers, not kids!” *and the crowd roars in support*
That’s not justification for further legislation, nor is it even scratching the surface of reality. The reality is, nobody can buy an AK-47 without a special permit that requires a much more extensive vetting process beyond the already-extensive process for non-military grade weaponry.
The simple logic is, implementing the suggestions you propose (one gun per household, longer wait periods, etc) will NOT stop criminals, nor will it impact the rate of crime. The fact that Holmes had a bunch of guns didn’t yield greater deaths; he would have likely killed just as many with one gun. It’s not like he depleted ALL his ammunition for one type of gun he carried, then started using the others. He was just using multiple guns because he felt like it, not out of necessity.
And again, if we had a law that limited one gun per person, bad people would just get their other guns illegally (which you acknowledged, finally).
So what are you arguing? That the OTHER forms of gun deaths can be avoided? The accidents? The crimes of passion? Are you saying those statistics (mind you, which are fractions of gun crimes) are worth additional regulations on all us competent gun owners?
We seem to have reached something of an impasse now, although you seem to have stopped insisting that I don’t know what I’m talking about which I do appreciate. I do also take many of your points:
*Neither extra restrictions nor attempting to ban guns will stop crime, stop murders, stop violent criminals getting guns, nor stop the serious lunatics such as Holmes from killing people. This is all true. However I continue to insist there is middle ground – opportunistic crimes, crimes of passion, suicides, accidental shootings, etc – where an overall reduced access to firearms would have a positive effect.
*The matter is complicated and other factors such as health care, culture, demographics and so on all likely contribute to the higher rates of shootings in the US. No argument from me here either. These other factors also need to be addressed rather than pinning the blame solely on ready access to guns. But I argue that gun control is a significant contributing factor that needs to be addressed.
*The self defence case. I’ve seen the case of the 71 year old in Florida chasing off those two robbers. This is a good example of a personal firearm used for good – for the defence of innocent people. I also believe that if someone breaks into your house to rob or attack you and you shoot them dead that you should have no case to answer in the eyes of the law. However none of this contradicts my platform for the consideration of tightening controls.
*The vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US, such as yourself, are responsible, own their guns legally and have no intention to use those firearms for anything other than their legally designated uses, such as self-defence and hunting.
There are also arguments from the pro-gun side I find to be facetious and/or unhelpful:
*Knives/cars/alcohol/tobacco also kill people, should we be banning them? No, of course not. For starters these things all serve a primary purpose unrelated to hurting or killing things. Close to 100% of deaths related to cars, alcohol and tobacco are unintentional – they are not used for murder. Knives are mostly used for cutting stuff up in your kitchen and those designed purely to wound or kill – such as switch blades – are rightly illegal. These things all have their own sets of regulations to various degrees and whether these are adequate is a completely separate and unrelated issue.
*Extra restrictions will inconvenience the law abiding folk while criminals will be unaffected because they don’t obey the law anyway and get their guns illegally. This grossly oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores the fact that crime exists on a spectrum. The Holmes-type psychos may kill anyway, organised crime gangs and other serious criminals may be minimally impacted but the two-bit crims – teenagers holding up a convenience store who end up killing the cashier for example – may find things a bit tougher.
*Second amendment etc. This may be a case against the outright banning of guns but is not an argument against more tightly controlling access to them. Leaving aside the tenuous link between what constituted a “well regulated militia” in 1791 and basically every citizen in 2012.
Basically what it all boils down to is my response to your final question, which I think sums it all up really:
“So what are you arguing? That the OTHER forms of gun deaths can be avoided? The accidents? The crimes of passion? Are you saying those statistics (mind you, which are fractions of gun crimes) are worth additional regulations on all us competent gun owners?”
Yes. That is absolutely, 100% what I am saying. I think that by placing a greater impost on the regular, innocent, law abiding gun owners, that hundreds if not thousands of deaths could be avoided. A comparatively minor inconvenience in terms of the overall picture, in terms of the greater good. And I think it warrants, if not a knee-jerk change in policy, at the very least it warrants serious consideration and investigation. For a society as a whole, I believe this is for the greater good. You may not agree but this is my opinion.
Sorry Chris, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here. First of all, I still contest you don’t know a lot of what you’re talking about. You’ve gotten better the deeper your comment depth goes, for sure, butt when it comes down to it you still think 50 rounds per minute is beyond the reasonable rate of fire for a weapon, as one example, which is just flat-out silly of you to think. I can get off 50 rounds-per-minute with a 6-shooter revolver for crying out loud.
In your latest comment, you do the “agree with stuff, then make a point” game, which is a good school of debate. It doesn’t fool me though
. You’re still making arguments that don’t add up, or are otherwise not saying anything I haven’t disagreed with already (hence, we should just agree to disagree). Ultimately, through all that text, you still *ultimately* boil your argument down to this:
You believe that it’s worth slapping stricter sanctions on responsible gun owners like myself – like the majority of the U.S. (99% of Americans) – to save what likely amounts to a few hundred deaths a year as a result of crimes-of-passion and accidents.
I exclude teens holding up a liquor store, as in many states you must be 21 years-old, and even still I consider that a planned crime and in the absence of a gun store I do believe they’d get their guns illegally, just as they do their weed and other elicit substances our youth in this country ingest. I also exclude suicides because I am positive someone who wants to end their life badly enough to follow through with it will certainly go outside the law to accomplish it. What penalties could they possibly face?? They have nothing to lose.
That leaves us with crimes of passion, and accident. To hold 99.X% of the country hostage to save 00.Y% of deaths seems irrational. I am not an insensitive person, I am a realistic person. That is an acceptable level of Darwinism to me. Especially when there are plenty of other things our politicians, media, and society should be focusing on.
If I could go to Walmart and pickup a gun, my position wouldn’t be the same. Between age, background check, waiting periods (up to 6 months in some states), permits, registration, mag capacity restrictions – the laws are strict enough. At this point, we need to look outside of legislation at what can be done to curb crime in America.
Go to the root of the problem for a solution. Don’t just look for a band-aid. The gun is a tool. The root of the problem is WHY people are killing people. In the absence of a gun, people will find another tool to exert the same emotions they are feeling. Or, more likely, in the absence of legal guns they will just look to illegal guns.
Well, we could keep going back and forth and you could keep pretending I don’t know what I’m talking about or that it matters which type of gun shoots bullets at which speed. You could continue to argue – bafflingly, inexplicably – that every single gun ever used in any crime ever would have been obtained and used regardless of tighter controls. You could continue to cry foul over my insistence that “facts” and “statistics” have a legitimate place in the debate.
But we don’t need to because you’ve brought us to the crux of the matter and admitted what I suspected when you say:
“You believe that it’s worth slapping stricter sanctions on responsible gun owners like myself… to save what likely amounts to a few hundred deaths a year” and “To hold 99.X% of the country hostage to save 00.Y% of deaths seems irrational.”
You actually seem think it would be a grave injustice to place extra restrictions on the many law abiding gun owners to save “a few hundred lives” per year. And that really sums it up – the pro gun types simply don’t CARE if lives will be saved if it means any extra impost on them, and they seem to have the numbers and the loudest voices.
So yes, as you say, I think we’ve reached the point where there is nowhere left to go but to agree to disagree.
No don’t try to twist it to make yourself sound more reasonable. I am a realist. If as many lives would be saved as you would have people believe, I’d be all for it. People like you make it sound like “Thousands” or even “Tens of thousands of lives would be saved!” – You sensationalize it like it’s a big thing.
As a man of statistics as you claim to be…
Texting while driving kills more people than intentional gun homicides involving legally acquired guns. I’ve heard the argument “Texting has a primary purpose other than killing, guns do not.” – I’m not saying spend the time you would spend actively against guns on Texting. I’m simply putting it into perspective here.
The number of lives you would be saving is tiny. If you could tell me: “If you make guns illegal, 10,000 lives a year would be saved.” – I would agree with you, and wholeheartedly support your ban on guns.
But you *can’t* tell me that, and you’ve even acknowledged in all likelihood it is a far bigger issue than just legislation that amounts to all the violence in America. As such, I logically conclude that it is pointless to slap stricter legislation on responsible free adults, who are already restricted well beyond reasonable measure, on a WHIM that it might save *some* percentage of an already tiny percentage of deaths each year.
That’s my position. It has nothing to do with not caring that lives may be saved. It’s a realistic measurement of risk/reward, not an overly-nervous mom looking to coddle the world in her bosom at the expense of living a free life. Certainly not at the expense of making all us other people live a less free life.
I’m not twisting anything, they were your words. I just don’t understand the attitude of “there are other things kill even MORE people than guns so no need to worry about guns then” any more than I understand the attitude of “sure SOME lives would be saved but not enough to justify putting gun owners out so we shouldn’t even consider it”.
No doubt we could all agree that, in general, achieving the greatest good for the greatest number is a desirable outcome. However, my belief is that saving some lives – hell, even one human life – would be worth whatever the time and expense would be, and the infinitely greater benefit to a small number outweighs the slight inconvenience on the masses. Your belief seems to be that unless you can guarantee large scale benefits there’s no point. At this point facts and statistics don’t even really enter into it, it’s purely an opinion on what is worthwhile. You say extra restrictions make you less free but the people that have been killed or even affected by gun crime have suffered a radical reduction in their personal freedom through –in many cases – no fault of their own.
You say the number of lives saved would be tiny but you don’t know that anymore than I can guarantee the number saved would be worthwhile. I still maintain it’s worth researching exactly what the benefits would be and discussing how lives might be saved, given the stark statistics.
You say: “As such, I logically conclude that it is pointless to slap stricter legislation on responsible free adults, who are already restricted well beyond reasonable measure, on a WHIM that it might save *some* percentage of an already tiny percentage of deaths each year.”
Seriously? The word “logic” has absolutely ZERO business being in this sentence. Restricted well beyond reasonable measure? Do you yearn for some anarchic, Lord of the Flies-style post apocalyptic world with no semblance of law and order? If you think you’re unfairly restricted in your personal liberties try being a woman in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. An extreme example perhaps but just putting things in perspective here. And you somehow now conclude that imposing tighter controls leading to a reduction in shootings is now a “whim” despite the figures.
Anyway we’re going round in circles now. I think tighter measures would lead to a significant reduction in gun crime, you think it would make very little difference. I think the inconvenience of tighter restrictions is worthwhile even for a small benefit, you think it’s not worth bothering with unless a significant benefit is all but guaranteed. Neither of us is changing the other’s mind on these two key points, it seems.
It’s a matter of prioritization. Why prioritize your activism against guns, when more lives can be saved elsewhere? The reason you prioritize toward guns is because you believe (because the media hypes it up) that guns are this super-evil thing. Guns are just as much a part of my life as Chocolate Cake. I’d be just as upset if you were trying to outlaw Chocolate Cake because of the obesity deaths each year (which mind you, far exceeds gun homicides).
Again, I admit that argument is specious but I am just trying to drive home the point through silly analogies because the more rational ones don’t seem to make it through to you.
The only reason you’re this active against a gun, as opposed to some other social issue that is far more detrimental, is because some headlines were made recently. It’s a bogus call-to-action that you, and tons more like you, fall for every time. There are so many better causes that just don’t make as good of a headline nor draw as much audience, so the media doesn’t focus on. And thus, society doesn’t focus on.
“I still maintain it’s worth researching exactly what the benefits would be and discussing how lives might be saved”
Yes, discuss the source of the problem, not your band-aid solution. Get to the crux of the matter; why are people so violent. It’s NOT because guns are legal. It’s something else, but you just want to slap the same sanctions as other less-violent city-states and call it a day. I say that’s just a cop-out solution that only serves to hurt me, a law abiding gun owner, and doesn’t aim to actually benefit society much, if at all.
Finally, your post-apocalyptic analogy says it all. You have a sensational view on gun ownership, just as I suspected and accused, and you just showed your hand in that statement. Of course that’s not what I’m yearning for, but it’s what you mind’s eye sees when you picture America. It’s so not like that, it’s laughable. It is NOT easy for a teen to acquire a gun (only way now is illegally) – or – by getting one from their irresponsible parents. Again, making guns illegal isn’t the proper solution there. Proper parenting IS the solution.
Why should I be punished because my neighbor doesn’t lock his guns up around his kids? Should I be punished because my neighbor doesn’t lock his Recurve Bow up from his child and his child shoots a kid with an arrow? Should we outlaw recurve bows now too? This notion that “lives can be saved so let’s remove something from society from the vast majority of responsible users” is just not LOGICAL. It’s a super-sensitive, coddle the whole world attitude that is backwards.
There IS progress to be made in education & training, beyond legislation, that you could be putting your time toward. That fixes the root of the problem, without penalizing those of us already well-educated. Try that first.
Anyway you’re right – talking in circles now. You’re not going to budge, I’m certainly not going to budge, so I guess this will be my last comment here.
Yep, could be time to wrap this one up. Closing thoughts: “Why prioritize your activism against guns, when more lives can be saved elsewhere?” 100% agree. If MORE benefit can be had through healthcare reforms of drink driving campaigns etc then more focus should be directed there first.
“The only reason you’re this active against a gun… is because some headlines were made recently.” Not quite. It stems from the 1996 slaughter of 35 Australians by Martin Bryant. By the by, that led to wide ranging gun reforms and (so far) no further mass shootings in Australia. (I realise this doesn’t guarantee cause-and-effect, it’s not like we ever had many mass shootings here). And you make a fair point – for example every time someone is killed by a shark there is mass hysteria even though sharks kill barely kill a handful of people worldwide per year compared to who knows how many road deaths. The current gun hysteria will die down until the next mass shooting. But I stand by my position that the numbers are stark enough to justify a tweak in the laws.
“There are so many better causes that just don’t make as good of a headline nor draw as much audience” – 100% agree again. As per my shark analogy, the dramatic stuff gets the headlines. For what it’s worth I’m infinitely more concerned about other causes such as human rights atrocities under oppressive regimes, for example the sickening practice of “honor killings” (e.g. women being stoned to death for “adultery” after being raped or being killed for refusing an arranged marriage). In Indonesia (among other places) you can go to jail for blasphemy or just being an atheist, which is so unjust it makes me sick to my stomach. It’s a very long list and gun control isn’t at the top, it’s just the topic of the day.
My post apocalyptic analogy had nothing to do with gun control – I was simply saying if Americans are so repressed what would it take not to be repressed – an absence of government? I’m saying the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc, all have far greater personal freedoms than highly oppressed people such as residents of North Korea or most of the Middle East. Comparatively we’re doing ok.
So in summary, myself and many others think this is worth addressing, yourself and many others think it would be better to direct attention elsewhere, and it sounds like Obama has pretty much palmed it off for now and unless it really ever becomes an election issue I can’t see major changes happening anyway.
It’s been fun, cheers.
I agree with most of what you said. The one thing I have to disagree on is the 10 round capacity. I understand your reasoning. But in a self defense situation, (the reason I own guns) I would feel much more comfortable knowing I have sufficient ammo available. In such a situation, your adrenaline is racing, you are forced to make split second decisions. There is no way you can make a perfect shot. So it may take more than 10 rounds.
“I’d be a criminal because I would still find a way to get them. And I’m not a crazy murderous fuck, now am I?”
Are you for real? And why would you still want to get one? 300 Shooting A DAY and over 100k gun related a year in the US, just because Guns arent illegal. Enough non-sense, no amount of “philosophy” will blur the facts and numbers. They are deranged people in all the countries in the world but when those people are legally allowed to buy and carry weapon you get Aurora. As simple as.
My 2 cents
Just to add that this is a view from someone outside the US, living in a country where guns are illegals. Talking to various people around me, this is the general view, we simply cannot comprehend why someone would carry a gun for “protection” – No doubt an attitude that comes down from culture and historical fact but there it is.
You can’t comprehend why you’d want to protect yourself? So you and the three people you asked have never been mugged, eh? Yeah, because you and a couple of the “various people around you” have never been in a life-threatening situation before, it’s not need for anyone ever. My bad.
/sarcasm
Ask the people that have been prevented themselves from being robbed, harmed, or killed just because they were carrying a gun to protect themselves why someone would carry a gun for protection.
The reason you don’t want a psychological assessment as part of the process? Let’s try this:
Q. Why do you want to own a semi automatic rifle, two pistols & thousands of rounds of ammunition?
A. Well, in case the Government gets all oppressive like them there English did two hundred years ago and we have to form a militia to overthrow them; because I see it happening you know. Even though it hasn’t happened since the civil war it could! Any day now! And all those people that want to break into my house and murder me; I need it for against them, because they’re out there waiting and they’ll know I don’t have a big enough gun and enough ammo so they’ll target me.
Seriously; someone using acute paranoia as the reason to own a weapon should be the last person on earth given the ability to purchase one.
As I said on twitter: No law on earth will remove the National cultural response to any perceived threat whether real or imagined that a large segment of the US population has to everything at a micro & macro level. Guns will become unnecessary as a comfort blanket when the USA grows up as a country.
And before anyone thinks I’m being superior I’m from N Ireland which Saw decades of what happens when you have men of little courage & lots of fear spouting the right to bear arms to defend themselves, their family their country. Usually the deaths of innocent people.
Josh-
I agree with all of your [i]points[/i], but not all of your examples. The one specific example that I have an issue with (yet understand your point) is the systems put into place after 9/11. These systems [i]may[/i] have stopped something, but just by the nature of the issue we will never know. How can you claim to have or have not stopped something that never happened? Another angle of argument is that perhaps the general public/media were never alerted to something that was foiled by these programs. Once again, I understand your point totally; I just don’t think the means to the end was usable as an argument in this case.
I agree with most everything else you said, and for a while into the article I almost felt as though I was reading my own thoughts; that’s how closely we share these views.
I feel you on the laws you have to live with in California. I don’t see how an “issue” (sarcastic quotes) such as gun “control” can be left up to individual states to decide. I believe this should federally mandated, and should not be nearly as mandated as they are in most states. I live in Pennsylvania, and I believe this state is almost ideal regarding its gun laws. They are not nearly as strict;
1. Rifles (including semi-automatic) may be purchased privately with no official bill of sale or registation tied to the state of any kind; however, many retailers will perform a background check regardless of the firearm being purchased.
2. Handguns require a background check [i]and[/i] registration to your name. If sold privately, an official bill of sale is required and notification sent to register the handgun to the new owner.
3. High capacity (or “scary” as the uninformed view them) are not restricted at all. You may purchase as many magazines of whatever size you wish.
4. Fully-automatic rifles and handguns, suppressors (or built-in suppressors such as an MP-5SD), and short-barrel rifles (<16") and shotguns (<18") may be purchased through an authorized Class III FFL dealer. All that is required is a background check, fingerprint cards, and a check for a tax stamp.. and a bit of patience for it to be cleared. You can then purchase your Class III NFA item. Note that fully-automatic weapons of any kind must have been manufactured before 1984, as the manufacture and purchase of fully-automatic weapons became illegal in that year.
5. Ammunition sales are unrestricted, and should remain that way nationally. What will restricting the amount of ammo accomplish? The people that buy large amounts of ammunition are probably either stocking up for SHTF times, or because it saves money. All you need for a shooting spree is a $20 box of 100 rounds from Wal-Mart. What would be the point of stopping someone from stockpiling? Nothing.
One of my favorite points is one people overlook constantly, and yet you mentioned and argued; having the [i]ability[/i] to protect ourselves from an oppressive regime if necessary (I sure hope it never happens). I agree with you 100%. THAT is what the 2nd amendment was written for, and people would actually find that out if they read beyond the simple and overly-used term "the right to bear arms."
In closing, I like your thoughts and I wish I could talk to you in person about a lot of things. It would give me hope that there are still some black sheep out there; not your everyday hive-mind drone.
“There were 12,996 murders in the US in 2011 of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms”
Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state%5D
So here is my point of all your murders last year what a good 2/3rds of them were firearms that should speak for its self do you not think!
Yes people would still be able get a gun and ammunition through the black markets and what not but the guns themselves would be much more expensive and so would the ammunition.
Also it leaves the point of how do you think people would find these black markets if it was that easy your government would have shut them all down by now, so it would in essence make it cost more and make it harder to find them .
To take a quote from your points above
“Every time there is a mass shooting, the world revisits gun laws “
This sentence in its self should worry you the key word being “ everytime ” it should not happen but yes these things will happen I am not stupid enough to think there is no evil or bad in the world but answer me this why make it easier for them!
I love the use of your second amendment but let’s not forget this is from the 1700`s don’t you think the world has changed a little considering you are now a country as a whole and the civil war is long over !! Just a little extract to clear up my point below
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
• Deterring tyrannical government – you really think in this day and age that you could overthrow your government really!!!
• Repelling invasion – who in their right mind would invade your country?
• Facilitating a natural right of self-defence – because you can’t find some other way to defend yourself hmmm I would if you have Tasers, pepper spray!
• Participating in law enforcement – That would be what you now have the police for!
• Enabling the people to organize a militia system – because this is what people should do in their spare time organise and train .For something you and everyone else out there who works in your country pays tax for the Military and Police services and National Guard.
I take it you see where I am going with this the above was nesecarry back in the 1700`s but now do you really think it is ???
Let’s face it you have the strongest military power in the world and your military invades countries at will yes that is a different debate but my point still stands you send troops to anywhere you wish to do as you wish be it peacekeeping or freeing a people nobody asks your military to do it so I don’t think you need to worry about invasion and I don’t think your military would allow you to overthrow your government nor for a civil war to break out do you?
So your only real reason for them in this day and age is your right to have them!
We have guns in Ireland under certain circumstances you can get one but you usually have to be a member in a gun club and you will not get a handgun or assault rifle of any kind unless you have a serious licence which is not easy to get .
If you do own a weapon you must have a gun safe and the gun and ammunition are not allowed to be in the same place.
My last question is how would your life be directly affected if you were not allowed have firearms?
I’ve noticed quite a few non-citizens have felt compelled to toss in their opinions, and to them, I want to point out an obvious fact: All of them live in countries where gun ownership is completely banned or significantly regulated to the point of being banned in de facto. However, NONE of them can claim with any factual basis that this has eliminated what they erroneously call “gun” violence. In fact, despite the initial dip in crime statistics on violent crimes committed when some form of firearm was involved in most of the EU and UK, gun violence has increased in recent years in spite of the fact that decades of ban or control have rendered the average citizenry unable to defend themselves.
If these individuals relish their liberation from the horrible things that guns are claimed to do, then I say “Good On ya, mate”, but do not expect me or anyone else to bail you out when another dictator rises up from your midst, having figured out you are much easier pickings than we are. And, given your history, this is a very likely scenario.
As for most of us who are still capable of rational, reasoned analysis of fact, we, as the population in Switzerland, understand only too well that we will not be victims of criminals and criminal activity in the form of thugs or politicians trying to take what is rightfully ours.
Also, to address Graham and his skewed assertions, here’s a very telling article from one of the UK’s own papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
So, it seems that when one looks at the overall picture of ALL VIOLENT CRIMES PER CAPITA, his make-believe safe havens are anything but.
Again, an intellectually apathetic or antipathetic person will never be willing to look at all the facts. At the very most, they will merely dig and root around the data until they can cobble enough “supporting evidence” to buttress whatever claims they wish to make, even when the overwhelming facts show a vastly different reality.
“Scientific studies have demonstrated over and over that owning a gun makes it significantly more likely that you will be shot. The US has the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world; Americans are literally sacrificing hundreds of innocent citizens each year upon the altar of the Second Amendment.
Trouble is, the relationship of gun culture to violence is poorly understood by the public. Studies have even compared violence to a “socially infectious disease”. What is encouraging, is that where it has been tried, fewer cheap guns on sale = fewer criminals with guns.”
taken from this new scientist blog. the biggest issue I have with the comparisons between guns and knives or cars or anything else that can cause death, is that all these other things have other primary purposes. the primary purpose of a car is transporation; the primary purpose of a knife may be anything from preparing food to carpentry. a gun’s primary purpose is to kill, simple as that.
also, your gun/knife murder stats appear to be wrong – an fbi report from 2010 states that two thirds of all murders were gun murders (8775 out of 12996, or 67.5%), and a census.gov report from the previous year reports roughly the same proportion (9203 out of 13756, or 66.9%). these figures are supported by literally every single source I could find, so I’d be interested to see what sites support your figures (especially since the figures you give for gun murders appear to be consistent with the figures I found for ALL murders).
there are two problems, however, that probably prevent stricter gun controls from being a realistic and effective goal in the usa. first is the fact that the rate of violent crime in the usa is among the highest in the developed world, so the problem runs deeper than just people having the right to own guns, it’s an issue with american society and culture. second is the sheer number of guns in the country – 90 guns for every 100 citizens – makes it doubtful that anything short of a full nationwide compulsory buyback scheme would make any impression on the violent crime figures, and that sort of revocation of gun ownership rights would pass through the supreme court on roughly the same day that satan ice-skates to work.
finally, I’d like to ask a question, not only to josh but to anyone else who cares to read this: do you agree with the decision to allow the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 or do you think it should have been renewed?
Paul, you’re making points that aren’t relevant. I’m not saying what you’re saying is wrong per se, it’s just not important.
Yeah, a gun’s primary purpose is to kill, but that’s not necessarily why it’s used in most murders. It’s used in most murders because it’s the most effective way to kill with a reasonable amount of effort.
For example, poisoning with a rare undetectable poison would be easier than killing someone with a gun, but that rare poison would be very hard to obtain (even on the black market), would be more expensive than a gun, and would be harder to administer and require more planning. So it’s not the preferred method of choice among criminals.
However, a criminal can just as easily go to the gun store and buy a gun to plan his criminal act, as he can just go on a street corner in a bad area and purchase one illegally.
You raise one great point in your 2nd to last paragraph, talking about the problem running deeper than gun law. Yes, we are a different CULTURE. A different society. So additional legislation is NOT the solution. Just because legislation appeared to have worked for Norway (which also had a massacre regardless), doesn’t mean that legislation would work in the USA. You just made my point, so thank you.
From your own statistic (2 years out-dated, mind you), 8,700 gun related murders in the U.S. in 2010. The US Census Bureau reported 308,745,538 citizens living in the U.S. in 2010. That’s 0.00281% of the population that succumbs to gun violence. That’s akin to your odds of getting struck by lightning.
Do you think the media has blown gun violence out of proportion? Or do you think we should see more coverage about lightning strikes?
Now one might say “Well with such a low chance of getting shot, why do you feel the need to own a gun to defend yourself?” – Because home invasion statistics are much higher than gun murders. I don’t want to have to rely on me being stronger or fighting tougher than an intruder. I want that upper hand to ensure my family’s safety.
I totally agree citizens have no need for fully-automatic assault weapons. I’ve never argued against that law. I also believe it should be easier (or even realistic) for citizens to apply for concealed carry permits. If more upstanding citizens were carrying weapons, I believe mass crimes like this wouldn’t be so deadly. I don’t believe upstanding citizens are going to use their concealed guns substantially more irrationally than the instances where crime would be thwarted if more citizens were adequately armed in public.
We don’t know those statistics do we? We don’t know how much crime would be stopped or how criminals would tailor their behavior if they didn’t see innocent random citizens as so helpless. Who knows.
@ Paul – It is a fact that 94.3% of all statistics are created on the spot. No attributions, no footnotes, no context. The current (and prior years) Interpol Annual Reports do not corroborate your “facts”. Nor do the EU International Crime Victims Statistics. Not even the FBI Crime Statistics. Given that these are the benchmarks of crime stats, would you mind elaborating on your sources?
You soooo prove my point. Seriously? I must have missed where all those sheep in England got taken over by the dictator because they don’t own guns.
Let’s turn your logic around: do the US stats show that there are LESS victims of violent crime or property crime because you all own guns? Na; thought not so pointless then. You saying you have not been a victim of crime because you own a gun is as scientific & logical as me saying I haven’t been a victim of crime because I DON’T own a gun.
Just admit you own a Gun because you’re afraid of the dark and have an unhealthy paranoia and it makes you feel all big and strong. All your talk of logic and constitutional rights is self justification for an illogical impulse.
Me? I don’t think the government is out to get me and I realise that if I worried about stats that can kill me, I wouldn’t eat, drive, walk in the sun enter my house because all of these things are more likely to injure me than violent crime. Simply put: I don’t live in perpetual fear.
Your argument is immature to the point it’s almost not worth responding to, but I’m dedicated to improving you, so here goes
.
There are probably studies and figures for how many home invasions are thwarted by home owners being gun owners. I hear plenty of cases where home owners defending their property actually go to JAIL, because of our our gun laws are already so strict.
Let me reiterate… Bad guy comes into your home to rape your wife and murder you, you shoot him in the face to stop him, you wind up going to jail because your gun wasn’t registered, or because he wasn’t armed. He still knocked down your door, and went after your wife. Research some of these cases, it’s mind-blowing.
Still, I’d rather be judged by 12 (a jury) than carried by 6 (a funeral). So I absolutely feel more comfortable knowing that if someone knocks down my door with the intent to harm me, that I am properly armed to defend myself and my loved ones.
That’s not an irrational fear. It’s called responsibility. I live in an area with some of the highest crime rates on this planet. That is my responsibility to be prepared, as any responsible adult should be, to say nothing of my rights.
Absolutely nothing immature about it mate. You talk about logic and spout out every cliched generalised justification and soundbite for gun ownership; it’s worryingly robotic in its repetition.. I don’t actually care if you own a gun & as I stated in my earlier post I agree with you that legislation won’t solve the fundamental cultural problem that the US has. This belief that Guns are vital for your safety. Guns are not for defense: they have one purpose only; point, shoot & kill. It’s this nonsense about self defense and pointing to the constitution that I call bull on. All you’re doing is hiding your personal fear of hurt behind patriotic flag waving and horror stories that hapoebed just down the road. I just personally believe that like power, the worst people to hold a gun are fearful people & only people who are afraid of something believe they need a weapon.
You have proven my point with your own statement. Your & others in your areas legal gun ownership has not deterred the criminals in your own area if the crime rate is that high. So what is its point of your Guns? Are the home breakers and rapists mind readers and only attacking unarmed individuals?
you use the “theory” of a break in to your home and the imagined horror of assault on your family as a justification. I rarely hear someone post. “Someone DID break in and I saved the day with my gun.” you didn’t; so I can only assume its never happened to you.
So it is a perceived fear of attack rather than actual danger that drives you to own your gun so what’s incorrect about my hypothesis as to why certain people feel the need to own a gun?
Stats can be manipulated one way or another so they are pointless in this debate. So it is simply down to emotion. You and I could live in the same area our entire lives and not be a victim of crime. Your emotional need for a gun against possible threat effects you constantly while my lack of fear at the same dangers does not.
My lack of fear in no way increases the likelyhood that I will be a victim of crime so what day to day purpose does your gun have in yours other than a rather risky comfort blanket.
Again; I lived in N Ireland through the troubles where lots of evil men had not only guns but bombs but not once did it cross my mind that I would be safer if I had my own guns or my own bombs. Why? Because its was circular logic that guarantees somebody getting shot & killed. Pure probability that the more guns you add to a human situation increases the likelihood of use which increases the likelihood of death & injury.
It’s the same reason that the majority of English police officers are still against being armed (excluding the specialist teams) its a psychological element they believe limits them. If you have it you will use it, if you don’t you will use other skills to uphold the law & diffuse situations. They aren’t being killed at a higher rate than US police officers despite the fact that criminals are armed.
So while I like to refrain from your type of personal attack; tell me again who between the two of us is emotionally immature in how we view the “threat” of the big bad world? I’m a aware of the statistical danger of being alive: I just don’t think it’ll make me feel better waving a gun at it.
There’s no hope for you I’m afraid… You’re just stubbornly going to stick to your guns (no pun intended…) even at the cost of making unhinged arguments on the Internet.
Just because something hasn’t happened to me doesn’t mean I shouldn’t prepare for it. I’ve never gotten in a car accident, but I still wear my seat belt. I’ve never had a shell casing fly out of my firearm at the gun range and hit me in the eye, but I still wear protective glasses. I’ve never cracked my skull on the ground while riding a bicycle, but I still wear a helmet.
I do these things because I know the statistics. I know the CHANCES of me falling off my bike and smashing my head are high. I know the CHANCES of getting in a car accident is much lower than that, but still high enough to take safe precautions. I know the statistics of a shell casing hitting a very small point on my face is even more unlikely than the other two scenarios, but I still practice safety.
And home invasions happen more frequently than eyes getting poked out by shell casings. So just because that hasn’t happened to me doesn’t mean I don’t prepare for it. Because it’s happened down the street from me. It’s happened around the corner from me. They happen, and god forbid it happens to me, I will be prepared.
Nobody in their right mind would make the argument you’re making – “Oh it hasn’t happened to you so you’re just being afraid” – nobody sane would say the things you are saying. So I guess it’s good you don’t own guns
.
I was implying you are insane facetiously. I know you’re not insane. You’re just stubborn. You WANT to win an argument over the Internet SO BADLY that you’re throwing logic and reason out the window just so you don’t seem wrong or admit fallacy.
It’s okay.
And before you go “Oh you live in an area with high crime, then you should support disarming them!” – That would be a really silly thing for you to say, so please don’t…
Because criminals have a habit of disregarding the law. That’s why they’re criminals! So making guns more illegal, or harder to obtain legally, would only serve to put ME at further risk. They’d still find ways to obtain them, and commit their bad acts.
Fair play Son. Again with personal attacks.
Just out of interest; the statistical probability of a nuclear attack in a US city has actually increased since the end of the cold war but I’m sure you’re ok because being prepared you probably have a nuclear bunker out back right? No!! How irresponsible of you. What rediculous analogies in a vain attempt to belittle my very simple point. You are ruled by fear.
Seriously; stick to computer games; advertising a blog as a open and reasoned debate then proceeding to sound like a very sensitive very paranoid teenager who resorts to macho posturing when challenged is a little pointless.
As for who people should trust with a gun? I have been trained and used a variety of rifles and PPW in my colorful & varied past and I’m obviously assuming you have too. So both technically proficient (I might be a tad rusty: shiny metal end bad, dull plastic green end good right?). That leaves mental state then. One of us is confident about facing the world without a weapon the other appears to think the world is out to get him.
Maybe it’s the difference in seeing first hand what these weapons actually do to a human being that makes me pause and try & find an alternative to reaching for a gun at the first sign of threat.
Maybe you’re right and I’ve blundered blissfully unaware of the horrendous danger that has faced me in my private life for the last 4 decades. To be fair; I didn’t wear a helmet when riding my bike as a kid; all those times I fell off by the grace of God eh? And climbing those trees!
By the Way JD; I truly hope and wish that none of your fears are never realized and whatever weapons you own never have to be used in anger. Health & happiness to you & Yours.
And ironically on the legislation issue as I said I agree. Ironically I would not consider my self as liberal as you maybe not quite republican in your countries sense but Definately small c conservative.
My view would be that to rid the need of privately owned guns you need to throw enough money into decent social reform, education etc: truly invest in the the usually soundbites of “equality of opportunity” to decentifise crime as an option but unleash the world of hell as punishment on those that choose it anyway. Particularly in my country we have become so human rights orientated that the criminal is protected more than the victim. Redress that and slowly but surely you’ll not need your weapon. Now the specifics of that are a whole other debate!
pretty much sums up my personal feelings. Although I would be more worried about SHTF and defending myself in a doomsday scenario before fending of a tyranical US gov.
Criminals will break any gun laws the Government enacts. And stupid little laws like magazine limits and bullet buttons are pointless and only infringe on rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
California gun laws are bullshit
Hi Josh,
Nice blog. I tweeted you my rebuttal, not sure if it was read but I worked hard on it damn it, so I’m hoping for a response!
http://ow.ly/1OnLMG
Cheers,
Genny
There’s a whole slew of reasons why I don’t see it productive responding to your tirade, no disrespect intended. But it’s so far-off an unhinged from the topic, or even more – my position in-general – that it would be counter-productive for me to reply to it with any specifics.
Very little of my views are actually represented or responded to, and a huge portion of it that dives into the history – while demonstrating your advanced knowledge of American history – has no relevance whatsoever. I wasn’t trying to make a patriotic show of support for our founding fathers, nor was I claiming they were angels, but they did factually take up arms in a treasonous manner against an oppressive government with the intent to overthrow them.
(The whole no taxation without representation bit). Though I am well aware of the controversial historical views on that matter altogether.
My point is, you responded in a very unproductive manner not really paying much attention to what I wrote. If you want to see what proper discourse looks like (albeit very repetitive and cyclical) you can take a look at my debate in the comments below with “Chris Kennedy” – And then respond in any ways you feel he didn’t adequately represent.
He shares your overall opinion, though, so probably said most of what you’ll ultimately say in a more carefully crafted rebuttal.
-Josh