Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. There is a gray area. For some crimes, yes I agree, the death of the criminal was a good thing in comparison to the crime he was about to commit. I'm not sure we really want to go further into this, as it would be difficult to get anywhere with it (I think).

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah he sounds like a great person. Hopefully he used his millions to buy a lot more weapons so he can protect himself from the government which supports darkies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure youre happy his family is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm very indifferent. This guy sounds like one of the last people that I would feel sorry for. He appears to have trained his 11 year old kid to attack US marshalls with a rifle just for coming on his property. So yes, his family deserved to die in my opinion. I'm surprised that guy is getting any support on this board, but whatever, gun fanatics scare me.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be a "google is your friend" nit, but it really isn't that hard. I just googled "did alcohol usage increase with prohibition" and got your answer for you:

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I like to make assumptions. That was a rhetorical question, of course alcohol usage decreased with prohibition. Why would I need to look that up? If it goes from being readily available to more difficult to obtain then its consumption will decrease. So that link proved the obvious, that it decreased but didn't eliminate alcohol consumption.

I'm guessing that internet poker playing decreased in the US since the Frist law too. But I'm a wild man so I'll keep on making my crazy assumptions without verifying them.

[/ QUOTE ]

pyedog,

I'm sure you realize that there exist quite a number of things that seem logical or intuitively obvious, but that on closer inspection, turn out to be surprisingly different. This pattern occurs in science, in poker, in puzzles, and in many other areas. Of course, it occurs sometimes in politics too.

I would really suggest that you spend at least a bit of time reading some of the linked information regarding guns.

Violent crime in the U.K. has indeed increased as gun controls were increasingly implemented. Of course there could be many reasons for that.

It's one thing to be opinionated and to think one is correct about something; it's entirely another to wilfully shut out all evidence to the contrary. No one is suggesting you become a research fanatic, but at least familiarizing yourself with some of the compiled statistics would be a good idea if you intend to discuss such matters further.

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, and making assumptions is a useful tool. For assumptions to remain a useful tool, they must be tempered or adjusted as new evidence presents itself. I would hope you see the truth to this statement.

Anyway, thanks for reading this post, and I look forward to reading more of your perspective on these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
John,

Good post and I agree to some extent. However, in this case, I think that the onus should be on gun supporters to prove that limiting the supply of handguns increases the incidences of extreme violence and murder.

Because on the surface, it would appear way more likely that if no one had any guns then the number of murders would go down. I would hope that even gun supporters could see why someone might make that assumption? It is a fact that the easiest way to kill or maim someone that you wish to harm in most US states is to go out and buy a gun and shoot them with it. So if you take away that easy option than murders should logically decrease.

Granted, this would need to be proven, but I don't think that it ever can be. You guys have pointed to a study in the UK which appears to suggest the opposite. However that is only one country, whereas most other first world countries in the world have much stricter gun laws and also way less incidences of gun related deaths. Someone else pointed out the reduction in murders that occurred when Australia regulated guns.

This year at the All Star game in LV there were entourages toting guns which caused shooting deaths. Those deaths would have been less likely to occur if those people didn't have easy access to guns.

Also, from what I could tell from that UK study, UK has higher incidences of crime overall, but lower numbers of murders and rape. These are the crimes that most people would like to avoid. I would prefer that every member of my family is mugged and beaten up as opposed to one member of my family being shot and killed.

As an important point, I just wanted to make it clear that my opinion will never be swayed on this, I will always believe that easy access to guns increases the murder rate. Also, the opinion of gun supporters will always be the opposite. No studies could ever sway any of our opinions. So I'm not sure what the point of even arguing about it is.

In my opinion, gun supporters realize inherently that lax gun laws increase the number of gun deaths. However, they so value their right to own guns, because they enjoy them and wish to protect themselves, that they are willing to make that tradeoff. For non gun people this seems like a terrible tradeoff. To cover up this belief, arguments are made that all other crimes would increase disproportionately if guns were outlawed.

If there was concrete evidence that a society with no access to guns couldn't be as safe then I could see making this point. But there are so many countries with strict gun laws that have low crime rates and much lower murder rates that I find it impossible to make this conclusion.

[slickss]

A very good post, pyedog. I agree with everything you wrote.

[AbreuTime]

4 points:
1) I'm not going to speak for any particular person, but some people who are anti-guns assume that they should fall in the gun-control camp. This is not necessarily the case. I can believe that a society with no guns is safer than a society with guns, and I can still oppose gun control. Why? The choice is between:

A) society where everyone has access to guns
B) society where only criminals have guns.

Gun control does not eliminate all guns from the streets. Once people realize that, then the ramifications of such a law can be more easily seen. Strict gun control just removes guns from law-abiding citizens. The "calculus" of a criminal's decision making changes under a system of absolute restrictions, as he can now expect that an attempted crime will not be faced by a gun owner.

2) the studies on the first page of this thread are extremely relevent to the debate, as they prove that loosening gun controls lowers crime. The argument for gun control centers around reducing crime in exchange for a (in their opinion) worthwhile reduction of liberty (ie. right to bear arms). If gun laws actually hurt crime rates, their argument falls apart. Florida is as close to a controlled experiment as you can get. The reduction in gun restrictions reduced gun crime, at a rate better than the national average. The statistics showing the low amount of accidental deaths from guns further supports this law structure, since the tradeoff (lower violent crime and higher accidental death) seems to be statistically non-existent.

3) Appealing to emotion is not an argument for either side. Telling a story about
A) the need for a gun if you are getting raped, or
B) the possibility of verbal disputes escalating into shooting
are not arguments, and just muddy the waters.

4) The questions about what consititutes a right, and why it is different from a preference is an important one, and I will try to address it. link to wikipedia's definition of a right:Right

What is the basis for your rights as a person, and from this source, what then would your rights be as a citizen? Also, note the different between natural rights (ie. right to life) and legal rights. Appealing to a judge or arbitor for legal rights only clarifies existing laws, and does not guarantee protection of natural rights if the legal system does not recognize them. A judge is not a guaranteer of personal freedom of the laws of the society are corrupt.

Recognizing a right to life (natural right) may lead to recognition by goverment of legal rights, which may include the right to bear arms. In my opinion, the government should not restrict behavior unless the behavior is shown to infringe on others' natural rights (Property rights have come to be classified in the natural rights category, because they are necessary for an ordered society). In other words, there should be a predilection toward freedom. In order to CONSIDER restricting the right to own a gun (which, ironically, is also conferred as a legal right in the Bill of Rights), you must be able to unequivically show that a society with gun control is superior to one without. Crime rates should inform the law, and evidence of MUCH HIGHER crime under loose gun control is needed to consider gun restrictions. Lacking this (and finding evidence supporting the contrary) it is NECESSARY for the goverment to protect (or not restrict, whichever language you prefer) your legal right to own guns.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
The choice is between:

A) society where everyone has access to guns
B) society where only criminals have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, gun control does not necessarily ban handguns. They, do however, make it more difficult to acquire them. As I've previously argued, if it becomes more difficult to acquire guns the amount of guns in civilian hands is likely to decrease. To me, that's a good thing.

Furthermore, if you banned guns, B is correct as only law enforcement could hold a gun legally, and any civilian with a gun necessarily would be a criminal. However, do you not agree that the number of criminals (for other reasons than just acquiring a gun illegally to target practice) would also decrease significantly? Again, to me that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
... as he can now expect that an attempted crime will not be faced by a gun owner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Combined with what I wrote above, I think this also would make it less likely for a criminal to utilize a gun in the criminal act.

[ QUOTE ]
If gun laws actually hurt crime rates, their argument falls apart. Florida is as close to a controlled experiment as you can get. The reduction in gun restrictions reduced gun crime, at a rate better than the national average. The statistics showing the low amount of accidental deaths from guns further supports this law structure, since the tradeoff (lower violent crime and higher accidental death) seems to be statistically non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think pyedog addressed this very well. There are many ways to interpret statistics, and one must always keep in mind that there are other factors.

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]

John,

Good post and I agree to some extent. However, in this case, I think that the onus should be on gun supporters to prove that limiting the supply of handguns increases the incidences of extreme violence and murder .


Because on the surface, it would appear way more likely that <u>if no one had any guns then the number of murders would go down</u> . I would hope that even gun supporters could see why someone might make that assumption? It is a fact that the easiest way to kill or maim someone that you wish to harm in most US states is to go out and buy a gun and shoot them with it. So if you take away that easy option than murders should logically decrease.


Granted, this would need to be proven, but I don't think that it ever can be. You guys have pointed to a study in the UK which appears to suggest the opposite. However that is only one country, whereas most other first world countries in the world have much stricter gun laws and also way less incidences of gun related deaths. Someone else pointed out the reduction in murders that occurred when Australia regulated guns.


This year at the All Star game in LV there were entourages toting guns which caused shooting deaths. Those deaths would have been less likely to occur if those people didn't have easy access to guns.


Also, from what I could tell from that UK study, UK has higher incidences of crime overall, but lower numbers of murders and rape. These are the crimes that most people would like to avoid. I would prefer that every member of my family is mugged and beaten up as opposed to one member of my family being shot and killed.


As an important point, <u>I just wanted to make it clear that my opinion will never be swayed on this</u> , <u>I will always believe </u> that easy access to guns increases the murder rate. Also, the opinion of gun supporters will always be the opposite. No studies could ever sway any of our opinions. So I'm not sure what the point of even arguing about it is.


In my opinion, gun supporters realize inherently that lax gun laws increase the number of gun deaths . However, they so value their right to own guns, because they enjoy them and wish to protect themselves, that they are willing to make that tradeoff. For non gun people this seems like a terrible tradeoff. To cover up this belief, arguments are made that all other crimes would increase disproportionately if guns were outlawed.


If there was concrete evidence that a society with no access to guns couldn't be as safe then I could see making this point. <u>But there are so many countries with strict gun laws that have low crime rates and much lower murder rates that I find it impossible to make this conclusion.</u>

[/ QUOTE ]
KEY:
<u>AGREE</u>
DISAGREE
WTF (italics)

To address your last sentence: You cannot compare crime rates of different countries, and argue the root of the difference is gun laws. That is simply being intellectually dishonest, and I agree with you. However, I think you can do better. You can compare the crime rate of a society/country/state/territory before a change in laws to the rates after changes to the laws. That is not a perfectly controlled experiment, but it's closer. It would be better if you had similar countries/states that did not enact a new law to compare the changes to. This is why Florida is such a useful example.

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, gun control does not necessarily ban handguns. They, do however, make it more difficult to acquire them. As I've previously argued, if it becomes more difficult to acquire guns the amount of guns in civilian hands is likely to decrease.


[/ QUOTE ]
I am saying it takes guns away from law abiding citizens who use them responsibly, whose ownership is a deterrent to criminals. I agree with you, actually, that if everyone didnt have guns, we'd all be better off. IMO, implementing a time delay of a couple days to acquire a gun is reasonable, but I didnt think that was what caused 400+ posts in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

However, do you not agree that the number of criminals (for other reasons than just acquiring a gun illegally to target practice) would also decrease significantly?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how preventing citizens from owning guns would reduce the number of criminals and amount of criminal activity. Evidence? Again, criminals will still have guns, but fewer deterrents. If someone wants to rob a home, and guns are outlawed, the probability of success increases. I don't see how it is logical that outlawing guns will reduce crime when the incentive to commit crimes increases. This deterrent factor is important to what I argue, and is the mechanism (IMO) that makes states with lax guns laws safer.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
... as he can now expect that an attempted crime will not be faced by a gun owner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Combined with what I wrote above, I think this also would make it less likely for a criminal to utilize a gun in the criminal act.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didnt explain the mechanism above, and you fail to provide evidence of said unmentioned mechanism existing.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If gun laws actually hurt crime rates, their argument falls apart. Florida is as close to a controlled experiment as you can get. The reduction in gun restrictions reduced gun crime, at a rate better than the national average. The statistics showing the low amount of accidental deaths from guns further supports this law structure, since the tradeoff (lower violent crime and higher accidental death) seems to be statistically non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think pyedog addressed this very well. There are many ways to interpret statistics, and one must always keep in mind that there are other factors.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many ways to interpret statistics by people who dont know statistics. This isn't about you or people in this thread, but more of a reference to people in media. A controlled sample (while difficult to achieve when dealing with population comparisons) can be interpreted in finite ways. And you can control (through regression analysis) factors that differ across groups, and you can reasonably isolate the relevent variable (change in policy at time t). You cannot simply discard relevent evidence by claiming "statistics can be interpreted many different ways."

[slickss]

Argh, I can now see that I miswrote something - which correctly made you misunderstand what I was trying to say. My bad.

[ QUOTE ]
However, do you not agree that the number of gun-possessing criminals (for other reasons than just acquiring a gun illegally to target practice) would also decrease significantly?

[/ QUOTE ]

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. There is a gray area. For some crimes, yes I agree, the death of the criminal was a good thing in comparison to the crime he was about to commit. I'm not sure we really want to go further into this, as it would be difficult to get anywhere with it (I think).

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a grey area? Difficult to get anywhere with it? What?

Time for some Abreu now.