Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[nef]

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741...wsweek/page/3/

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the goal to reduce the number of gun-wielding criminals? (which would not decline, IMO. Criminals won't just turn in their guns because they are against the law.) I thought the goal was to reduce crime. And I argue that, based on the statistical evidence, crime fell when guns were made available to law-abiding citizens. I don't see why you would want to live in a society where only the bad guys have the guns.

By the way, I choose not to own a gun, and no one in my family owns a gun. I know exactly one person who owns a gun, and I support his right to own the gun. I also am swayed by the evidence that his ability to own a gun makes all of us safer.

EDIT: Guns don't create criminals, and making guns illegal does not dissuade someone from committing crimes. Making guns illegal does not dissuade a criminal from using a gun. Making guns illegal does not prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Making guns illegal makes it more likely that a crime committed with a gun will be successful.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you would want to live in a society where only the bad guys have the guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do (Norway), and I feel much safer there than I would ever do in USA - even if I myself was armed. Also, the crime rate is much lower. However, there are probably other reasons for this - mainly because it is a wealthier country and because the wealth is distributed more equally.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok...but for you to be eligible to possibly gain any right to to limit his actions, you can't just assert that you believe his actions endangers your safety significantly (and beyond other normally accepted activities/risks); you have to show convincingly that it does so.

[/ QUOTE ]

To whom do I have to "show" this to be "eligible" to restrict his actions? If I'm "eligible", then who enforces the restriction on his actions?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Making guns illegal makes it more likely that a crime committed with a gun will be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]
That said, do you agree with the following?

Making guns illegal...
1. makes it more likely that a crime committed with a gun will be successful.
2. makes it less likely that a crime is committed with a gun in the first place.
3. makes it less likely that someone is shot in the act of crime.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Abreu, I agree with your points. You seem to be the most reasonable of the posters who have a moderate opinion on the issue.

We both agree that society would be better off with no guns but that it can't happen in any reasonable time frame. So perhaps that means that the status quo should remain for gun laws. Personally I think that's a bad idea for Americans (and Canadians).

I haven't looked at this Florida study. However, my only objection is that the time frame they used might not have been sufficient because it's possible that almost everyone who owned guns at the start of the study still had them at the end. They would need to ban or severely restrict them for several generations before a major effect would occur. But then, as you pointed out, there could be outside factors which contributed to the change in murder rates anyways.

It is an interesting question why the US has such an alarmingly high gun murder rate compared to other developed countries. I don't think anyone knows why that is. I don't see how restricting hand guns could make that worse, but my opinion is useless.

I would be interested in the opinion of pro gun people why they think the US has such a high gun murder rate. I guess it must be some sort of societal attitude. I thought that Bowling for Columbine did a good job of posing these questions. I don't agree with every argument though. I'm sure that many NRA members refused to watch it or just disagreed with every point because they disliked the premise.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the biblical-english-american system, my statement of having a property right in my property is well established, your statement of you having a right to me not having a car is simply crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me that you are appealing to the definition of rights as determined by the majority opinion ("the biblical-english-american system"). This is exactly the system that I am defending.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I being negligent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you are being negligent then that is a violation of my rights. I don't think that you can be the one to determine if you are being negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. So you admit that just having the gun is not a violation? I think we're done here.

[ QUOTE ]
That is all correct. You are entitled to interpret those risks that I am foisting on you as being a violation of your rights. I may claim that they are not a violation of your rights, and then an arbritration process is required to come to a resolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I claim you owe me four hundred pounds of blow. I have nothing but the assertion. Is an arbitration process "required" to resolve this? How many arbitrators do you think will entertain such claims? I can just ignore you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically just want to ignore any effects that the policy you advocate might have. The intention is good, so that's enough for you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understood perfectly. You are appealing to emotion instead of logic, and you made up numbers to back your emotional claim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you've been very clear.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

I never said that more than 50% is used for bad things. Please stop attacking me by putting words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said more were used for bad things than good. Then you said more than 50% were used only for things like target practice. I consider target practice a good thing - it doesn't hurt anyone unwillingly, it increases the shooter's proficiency (he's now less likely to accidentally shoot you!), it increases the shooter's satisfaction (as evidenced by the fact that he voluntarily does it).

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of online forums is that you can go back and read what I wrote, so there should be no confusion as to what my words were.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not confused at all.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

So you want to limit discussion to points in your favor?