@obiwan

You are building a strawman. Until you provide convincing evidence that the gun laws are actually going to help, you aren't going to convince us that they are worthwhile. I explained in the other thread what counts as evidence.

I'm not being unfair; I make the same demands of anyone who thinks that guns reduce crime.

The major issue is that your arguments are making no sound reason for a certain set of laws. You rather assume that fewer guns = less crime, and therefore, we should have fewer guns. Would this argument stop working if we banned a particular set of guns?

What would happen if we did what you want? If it does work a bit, some people will still die from other guns, and so you will argue to ban those guns too. If it doesn't work at all, and it turns out people just use the (still lethal) guns that are available, then you are going to say "well, we've not gone far enough" and argue we should ban more guns.

You see, either way, you aren't going to stop thinking "we should limit guns a little bit more" just because we've done that already.

In other words, you are committing the runaway train fallacy. Your argument makes no reference to the particular set of laws in place at the moment, rather it says:

Making tougher gun laws will reduce crime
Therefore we should make gun laws tougher.

As well as not accepting the premise without sound evidence (as I am continually demanding, and specifying what evidence I mean), this argument is in complete:

It says we should make the gun laws as tough as possible, since it asserts that tougher gun laws mean less crime, and we want to minimise crime.

An analogous argument:

Lowering the speed limit will reduce road deaths
Therefore we should lower the speed limit

Which implies the speed limit should be zero. Clearly this is absurd, the fallacy comes from failing to realise the different things at play. There are benefits to having guns legal, and there are costs to enforcing strict regulation /even if it has some beneficial effect on crime, which is disputed/.

TGM, in the absence of indisputable fact, I don't think it's outrageous to make arguments based on logic and reason.
If ubiquitous handgun ownership doesn't serve a purpose but may pose some risk to society, why not outlaw it?

There are convincing 'logical' arguments for both sides. What matters is how much they stack up with reality, which isn't clear.

On the one hand, a gun is deadly, and so makes it easier to commit murder should you wish to do so.

On the other hand, an armed citizen's ability to defend themselves is a disincentive to crime (particularly professional crime) and so will reduce crime rates. Also, criminals are more likely to have guns anyway.

I don't see how anyone can look at those arguments and be so confident about the effect of gun law. I think all are valid, but the question is "how much?"

Furthermore, obiwan's line of argument misses the important point: which is that the attitude towards guns is likely the most important thing, not the number or type of them.

Obiwan claims he only wants to make a small change, but from what he argues, I don't see why he wouldn't keep on asking for that change even if it had been made. Had the Assault weapons ban been in force, would obiwan be arguing on the other side? How about if only small handguns were allowed? I still doubt it. Obiwan, whilst claiming (and I don't doubt his sincerity) to be against an outright ban of guns, is inadvertently arguing for it.


This is some data I compiled yesterday about civilian gun ownership and homicide rates in various European countries and America. The only remarkable things are how distinctly uncorrelated they are and how similar the crime rates are in intuitively 'similar' countries
(e.g. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Norway and Finland).


Country: Civilian gun ownership (guns per 100 people), Overall homicide rate (per 100,000)

Large number of guns:
US: 88.8, 4.96
Switzerland: 45.7, 0.7
Finland: 45.7, 2.3 (yes, gun rate is the same as Switzerland!)

Moderate:
Norway: 31.3, 2.22
Latvia: 19, 4.8

Few Guns:
UK: 6.7, 1.2
Italy: 11.9, 1.35
Estonia: 9.2 , 5.2
Lithuania: 0.7, 5.6
Ukraine: 6.6, 5.4
Netherlands: 3.9, 1.0

So, despite the high number of guns in the US, there hasn't be a sufficient amount to disincentive homicide?
For the sake of argument, let's say that there is insufficient data to prove whether or not gun legislation has any affect on crime (for better or for worse).

For a country which has no problem legislating against things on moral grounds (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.) it is surprising that something that is used recreationally by so few people is protected by so many. I'm not sure if it's an argument for or against gun legislation. It's just a remark that - if it wasn't so engrained in identity of so many Americans - I don't think legalisation would be in line with the rest of American policy.

"So, despite the high number of guns in the US, there hasn't be a sufficient amount to disincentive homicide?"

Or too many incentives to homicide e.g. drug war.

for your perusement: http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/why-arent-there-more-auroras

I also live in the uk and in my forty something years have only ever known 1 person own a gun. Just after I became aware of his gun he was cautioned for waving it around outside at someone who had clattered into him fence.

I respect the American tradition to bear arms and can see that it will take an awful lot to change deep seated opinions, but let's try anyway. A question to gun enthusiasts - Assuming that the figures quoted by TGM are correct what would the gun crime per 100000 need to be before you considered a change?

"Cars and liquor are heavily regulated so that you are able to safely use them for their intended purpose. So, why not have the same policy with guns?"

"Why is it all or nothing--surely responsible gun owners would agree some regulation and rules are warranted?"

Guns in the United States ARE already "heavily regulated." There are several classes of citizens that CANNOT purchase nor own guns. There are regulations on types of weapon and ammunition. Further, I ascribe to the "slippery slope" doctrine -- once you start down that slope it's very difficult to stop the momentum. Responsible gun owners HAVE ALREADY agreed that gun regulations are necessary and acceptable -- that is why we have the regulations that are currently in place. But, it never stops. No amount of regulation seems to be too much to the anti-gun crowd. The only conclusion that one can come to is that the anti-gun crowd will NEVER stop until they have instituted a COMPLETE ban of all fire arms for the People. If one is fighting an uphill battle on such a slippery slope, ever inch of ground is important.

"By denying any talk of regulation or even exploring the matter, you all sound like extremists or, worse -- Children throwing a temper tantrum."

Again with the name calling?!?

Nobody is denying talk of regulation. As I said above, guns are regulated, and the fact that they are indicates that gun owners have been amenable to those regulations. Yes, there are people/groups that fought every regulation proposed tooth and nail. But, as I said, every inch counts on a slippery slope.

The point that is lost on most anti-gun people/groups is that the VAST majority of gun crime is committed with by people that fall out side the category of "Responsible Gun Owner." I am not saying that it never happens, but that increasing the amount of regulation is really going to have a significant impact upon the ability of that very group. There are MILLIONS upon millions of responsible gun owners out there that never commit crimes with those guns. Why should they be restricted in their rights because there are criminals -- who don't buy guns legally anyway -- that commit gun crimes?

"1) In city limits it is illegal to have a firearm on your person or in your home. Guns can only be kept at a shooting range by a licensed and heavily monitored keeper."

So what you're saying is that in the MOST dangerous places, where the most gun violence occurs, where the most robberies and muggings, where the most and murders are committed, NOBODY in those places has the right of self defense?

Again, in the cities -- like Chicago -- the gun violence is being committed (for the most part) by criminal drug dealing gangs. Do you think these gang members are going into local guns shops to buy their guns? The City of Chicago has had gun bans on the books for years, has it helped? Criminals don't obey the laws, they get their guns through illegal means, what makes you think they're going to be controlled by further restrictions?

"2) Handguns are illegal. No fucking reason for them."

Of course there is a reason for hand guns -- close self defense. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from deadly force with like force. Are you saying that you don't believe self-defense is a unalienable right?

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns...

Amen Draugnar!

Florida elderly man stops armed robbery
By Haley Coomes
Story Created: Jul 18, 2012 at 8:24 AM EDT

(Story Updated: Jul 18, 2012 at 8:11 PM EDT )
OCALA, Fla. -- An elderly Florida man became a hero after he stopped an armed robbery.

Surveillance video showed two men, one armed with a gun and the other with a baseball bat trying to rob an internet cafe.
It happened last week Friday. Samuel Williams, 71, jumped into action. He pulled out a gun and started firing.
Both 19-year-old suspects were shot and taken to a hospital in Gainesville.
Williams does have a license to carry a gun and does not face any charges.

@fl64,

Are you actually PROMOTING the People defending themselves?!? How dare you bring up a time when a potential massacre was averted by an armed citizen. Criminals aren't supposed to have the tables turned upon them. The People are supposed to cower in fear, call 911, just do what they say, and hope that nobody gets hurt!

/s

Yes.

that's a good story flc64. Those kids must have had the shit scared out of them when they had bullets in their back.

OMG, you evil child hating bastard! Don't you know that guns, *gasp* kill people?!?

Obviously I am being very sarcastic.

Another point that anti-gun people miss is that "law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)." (http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm)

Further, there is no way to properly estimate how many "would be" crimes weren't committed because the scheming perpetrator(s) were scared off by the fact that the realized the potential victim was armed, or they thought they were armed. If you're a criminal bent upon doing others harm, are you going to go into an area or target people that you know are armed? No, of course not. You're going to seek out populations that have no way of defending themselves.

Interesting statistics MichiganMan!

All people that are trying to ban guns want us to focus upon is tragedies like the one that just happened in CO. But they always want to divert attention away from the LAWFUL and intended use of the tool -- self defense. I wonder if that horrible massacre would have raged out of control the way that it did had there been several armed movie goers in the audience that night. We'll never know.

But, imagine if such a thing had taken place in the "old West" where most men were armed at all times in public. Do you think that guy would have lasted very long? Do you think he would have been able to, as reports from survivors suggest, simply walk around the theater blasting away? Or, do you think he'd have been shot dead as hammer after getting off a few shots? Further, do you think if he knew that a large percentage of the people in the theater that night were, or could possibly be armed, that he would have been so bold? I doubt it.

To be fair, I think we should ban cars for drunks like Krellin. Only a matter of time until that lush causes some major damage.

"But, imagine if such a thing had taken place in the "old West" where most men were armed at all times in public. "

False, its a myth that dumbshit faux historians like you buy into. In fact many localities strictly prohibited the carrying of firearms in public, including Dodge City and Tombstone.

But no worries that's expected from your kind. Such myths are at the heart of you political beliefs in the first place.

and you are absolutely right, it would never have taken place in the "wild west." Because in the wild west people were walking around with six shooters, not 12-30 round mags.

the point wasn't that the old west was like that. His point was that what IF it was like that. If some of the people in the theater had a gun, what would've happened?

and one last additional indication of Michigan Man's obvious confusion, in colorado, concealed carry is legal. So, basically, if you follow republican arguments, this guy walked into a theater knowing that someone could be armed. There goes your deterrence argument

BUT what if someone had a gun and started shooting at him?

"the point wasn't that the old west was like that. His point was that what IF it was like that. If some of the people in the theater had a gun, what would've happened? "

He did make the point that the old west was like that, and he used that dumb shit assumption to suggest that our current softness caused this situation. Everyone in that theater had a legal right to have a concealed weapon. Who knows what would have happened? Only 5 would be killed instead of 12?

You are taking the post out of context, Santa.

Well now i make the point that if people started shooting at the guy that the death count would have probably been lesser

And now I make the point if there were as many concealed weapons on the streets so that statistically a few people in the theater would have a gun, there would be nearly as many deaths that result. I can't prove it of course, but neither could you.

Why do we have to ban all guns or allow all guns. There is a reasonable middle ground. Require collectors and dealers to be registered including their entire collection and only allow legitimate collectors to buy from legitimate dealers for certain types of firearms. Then the average joe would be limited to small arms like semi-automatics and revolvers, as well as hunting rifles and shotguns. Fully automatic weapons would not be available to the general oppulace without a special permit clearly indicating someone is a serious collector or dealer and *requiring* annual or semi-annual psychiatric evaluation to determine their stability. Also, the sale of rounds for semi and fully automatic weapons should be tracked closer to prevent stockpiling and no one should be able to own more than 1 box of any given type of munition unless they are a dealer or other business like a firing range.