What would you do about Virginia Tech?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
They pay for it in other ways, like higher crimes for other weapons and the occasional genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, that's a ludicrous assertion. (the genocide part)

You can make the case that gun control is bad without showing that gun control has negative outcomes for societies (which is empircally tenuous at best)

besides I think if you asked most people to consider if they'd rather live in a society where there were

1) one thousand gun crimes and zero property crimes
or 2) zero gun crimes and two thousand property crimes

they would choose 2

likewise

1) 1000 gun crimes and 0 stabbings
or 2) 0 gun crimes and 2000 stabbings

they would choose 2 as well

--

if you want to make the case that widespread guns actually decrease all crime do so. likewise if you want to make the case that gun crimes and gun ownership are not connected (view Canada) for example then do so

but you don't need to assert that gun control laws make people unsafer when they in fact don't.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They pay for it in other ways, like higher crimes for other weapons and the occasional genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, that's a ludicrous assertion. (the genocide part)

You can make the case that gun control is bad without showing that gun control has negative outcomes for societies (which is empircally tenuous at best)

besides I think if you asked most people to consider if they'd rather live in a society where there were

1) one thousand gun crimes and zero property crimes
or 2) zero gun crimes and two thousand property crimes

they would choose 2

likewise

1) 1000 gun crimes and 0 stabbings
or 2) 0 gun crimes and 2000 stabbings

they would choose 2 as well

--

if you want to make the case that widespread guns actually decrease all crime do so. likewise if you want to make the case that gun crimes and gun ownership are not connected (view Canada) for example then do so

but you don't need to assert that gun control laws make people unsafer when they in fact don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Hitler round up guns before rounding up Jews?

You believe 2000 stabbings is not as bad as 1000 gun crimes? I'd say it's worse. My guess is that getting stabbed in the chest or abdomen is just as deadly as getting shot there (and maybe deadlier). Getting knifed in a major artery might be deadlier than getting shot there, too. My guess is also that 2000 is more than 1000;-) - seriously, I think 2000 stabbings would be a lot worse than 1000 gun crimes.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Hitler round up guns before rounding up Jews?

[/ QUOTE ]

Godwin's Law. Thread over.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Hitler round up guns before rounding up Jews?

[/ QUOTE ]

Godwin's Law. Thread over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone asserted something along the lines of genocide in Europe not being linked to a disarmed populace so I provided a counterexample.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, that's a ludicrous assertion. (the genocide part)

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it? From what I understand, Germany and the Soviet Union were very pro-gun control.

[ QUOTE ]
but you don't need to assert that gun control laws make people unsafer when they in fact don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they do in certain circumstances.

[Osprey]

Well. We have a society with an underclass and criminal element. Our gun laws are lax, and there are weapons all over the place. Said people have access to weapons, resulting in gun crimes. Also, unhinged loonies seem to have access to weapons. Gun crimes are common in this country. This leads me to conclude we would be safer without guns. We would also be safer with a more equitable society where people weren't so angry about things, but that isn't happening either.

Oh, and BTW, I am sure the reason that Nazi Germany and the USSR happened is because they rounded up the guns. Otherwise, there would have been a dedicated resistance against the tyrannical governments which would have overthrown them. Give me a break, can you say crushed like a grape?
Similarly, if there were a Russian or German Gandhi (and who knows, there might have been), he would have been the first lined up against the wall, along with the "armed militia leaders." Resistance is only effective against some forms of government.

This guerilla resistance pipe dream is a cheap excuse.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
Well. We have a society with an underclass and criminal element. Our gun laws are lax, and there are weapons all over the place. Said people have access to weapons, resulting in gun crimes. Also, unhinged loonies seem to have access to weapons. Gun crimes are common in this country. This leads me to conclude we would be safer without guns. We would also be safer with a more equitable society where people weren't so angry about things, but that isn't happening either.

Oh, and BTW, I am sure the reason that Nazi Germany and the USSR happened is because they rounded up the guns. Otherwise, there would have been a dedicated resistance against the tyrannical governments which would have overthrown them. Give me a break, can you say crushed like a grape?
Similarly, if there were a Russian or German Gandhi (and who knows, there might have been), he would have been the first lined up against the wall, along with the "armed militia leaders." Resistance is only effective against some forms of government.

This guerilla resistance pipe dream is a cheap excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with your argument is the disconnect between your policy preference and its results. Banning guns would not result in a situation where there are no guns. It would result in a larger black market for guns and a defenseless population. I have linked to just one UK story, it is a bit old, 2003, but it is relevant because it is from 6 or 7 years after their gun ban. You'd think an island, especially one without a traditional love of guns like the US would be able to have all the guns gone by then, right? Also, if you look halfway down the article there is a reader comment that a way to end gun crime would be to ban all REPLICA guns. Lol!?!

Gun Crime Soars 35% - UK

Gun bans are also not working in Australia...

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

Australia Study

You also dismiss armed resistance too easily. You need to also consider the deterrent effect it has.

The 'insurrectionist theory' label does not do justice to this aspect of the Second Amendment. True, the Second Amendment implicitly authorizes recourse to arms when less drastic means fail to attain or retain the proper ends of government identified in the Declaration. But the Amendment's greater value lies in the deterrent effect it would have, were it respected and enforced to the degree of its companion rights in the Bill of Rights. Although it implicitly authorizes rebellion-and explicitly provides the means of waging rebellion-the Amendment, if observed, should make rebellion less likely by making it less likely to be necessary. The Second Amendment should stand as a reminder to those who govern of the people's ultimate right to preserve or reestablish their rights by arms. One need not prophesy armed struggle by American citizens against their own government to propose that the citizenry's widespread ownership of firearms could safeguard liberty by deterring tyranny. The great value of the right is political, not military. This value lies not in the fact that the Amendment enables armed resistance, but that by enabling armed resistance it should make the conditions which would justify such resistance less likely to occur."


Second Amendment Article on findarticle

Speaking of Ghandi...

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

"In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

[Kristian]

[ QUOTE ]
Banning guns would not result in a situation where there are no guns. It would result in a larger black market for guns and a defenseless population.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of a 'defenseless population' seems to be central for pro gun advocates. They seem to differentiate between those who need defense, and those who do bad deeds, when in fact, they are one and the same!

I hope everyone agrees that banning fire arms and regulating said ban, will reduce the amount of fire arms in the population. Fewer fire arms will result in less destructive power.
If you limit the destructive power of individuals, less people will be killed, it's really simple.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning guns would not result in a situation where there are no guns. It would result in a larger black market for guns and a defenseless population.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of a 'defenseless population' seems to be central for pro gun advocates. They seem to differentiate between those who need defense, and those who do bad deeds, when in fact, they are one and the same!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is the most depressing worldview I've seen expressed here. Everyone should be locked up! This is what happens when you look at aggregates and ignore individuals.

[Kristian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning guns would not result in a situation where there are no guns. It would result in a larger black market for guns and a defenseless population.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of a 'defenseless population' seems to be central for pro gun advocates. They seem to differentiate between those who need defense, and those who do bad deeds, when in fact, they are one and the same!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is the most depressing worldview I've seen expressed here. Everyone should be locked up! This is what happens when you look at aggregates and ignore individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about locking anyone up? There is a slight difference between personal freedom and the right to carry a lethal weapon.