The Gun-Control Free For All Thread

[Midnight Son]

I'm for controlling artillery over .50 cal. and plasma rifles. Let's play Hardball!

[XPav]

How about powered armor? It doesn't come with any weapons, but has mounting attachments for plasma rifles. Should it be banned?

[Midnight Son]

No, I want to stay on-topic here. Powered armor and personal force fields should be discussed in their own threads. :)

[Kalle]

I think anyone should be able to own any gun they want
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
as long as I'm the one who owns all the ammo.

[XPav]

My uncle makes his own ammo in his basement for his Enfields and Whitworth.

[Kalle]

My uncle makes his own ammo in his basement for his Enfields and Whitworth.

See, that's plainly dangerous and subversive behaviour and is exactly the kind of thing that would be banned under my ammunition-monopoly plan.

[XPav]

So will Kalle-land regulate all tools that could possibly be used in the manufacture of bullets?

[Kalle]

So will Kalle-land regulate all tools that could possibly be used in the manufacture of bullets?

Regulate, what a nice word, sounds so much friendler than "ban", I think I'll use that in the final draft of my plan. Now, where was I. Oh yes, tools will be "regulated". As will, of course all materiel from which you can make ammunition.

[bmulligan]

I didn't know they had American Liberals in Sweeden. You seem to know the jargon and euphemisms well:

"...replace 'BAN' with 'REGULATE'...mmmmm, yeah, they'll buy that] one.....now replace 'firearm' with 'assault weapons'........"


I'm sorry I misread the title of this thread. I read it as:

The Gun-Control free - For All, Thread.

When it's really:

The Gun-control-Free-For-All Thread.

[voltaic]

Kalle-land: where all ammo has been gently touched. :)

[Jessica]

With some 20,000+ Federal and state gun control laws on the books, I think we have enough.

[Kalle]

Kalle-land: where all ammo has been gently touched. :)

Ah, must remember to put in "gently touched" into the final draft as well.

[john black]

I'm for gun control and my brother-in-law is a fanatical member of the NRA. I planned a logical trap for him and argued portable atomic bombs should not be outlawed. I said that I needed a portable atomic bomb to protect myself in case there were any terrorists that had atomic bombs. My stupid thought was that he would argue against me and then I could turn his own argument back on him replacing machine guns for atomic bomb. It was a stupid thought because he got all excited and said that I was absolutely correct.

[Jason McCullough]

With some 20,000+ Federal and state gun control laws on the books, I think we have enough.

I have a hard time believing this number.

Edit:

Ah-ha! It's an old Reagan quote, and it's wrong.

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

Amusingly, the response to this by John Lott (!) of all people was to cite a BATF report which no one can seem to get their hands on:

http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20030203-04.htm

I suppose if you figure every other city in the US has a gun law (there's 35,000 cities), you can get the 20000 figure, but that seems to be a rather ridiculous way to get the number.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/citiesm.html

[JessicaM]

Interesting stuff, thanks, I hadn't seen that press release. I'll reserve final judgement until the book, the data and methodology has been peer-reviewed.

It seems to be somewhat limited, anyway, because they very narrowly defined their focus and deliberately excluded any local laws. For example, the press release notes that they don't include local laws that prohibit carrying firearms in public spaces, specifically because "Inclusion of such laws would certainly inflate national estimates of the number of gun laws."

Well... yeah. The theory is that 40 states supposedly pre-empt local laws, but we'll have to buy the book to check that out. Again, the NRA is demonized, described as "very successful" in getting this done.



With some 20,000+ Federal and state gun control laws on the books, I think we have enough.

I have a hard time believing this number.

Edit:

Ah-ha! It's an old Reagan quote, and it's wrong.

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

Amusingly, the response to this by John Lott (!) of all people was to cite a BATF report which no one can seem to get their hands on:

http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20030203-04.htm

I suppose if you figure every other city in the US has a gun law (there's 35,000 cities), you can get the 20000 figure, but that seems to be a rather ridiculous way to get the number.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/citiesm.html[[/i]

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah. Either way, though, the statement "we already have 20,000 gun laws" is supposed to give the listener shock that we have so many laws; my god, what are they up to? When you explain 99% of them are duplicate local jurisdiction laws the shock kind of fades.

[Kyle Wilson]

Yeah. Either way, though, the statement "we already have 20,000 gun laws" is supposed to give the listener shock that we have so many laws; my god, what are they up to? When you explain 99% of them are duplicate local jurisdiction laws the shock kind of fades.

If nothing else, I think most municipalities have some law about when/where you can discharge a firearm, and I don't think those are affected by state pre-emption. If you consider those ordinances to be gun laws -- and the hunters who have to be concerned with such things certainly do -- then I'm sure there are well over 20,000 laws on the books.

I don't think the "20,000 gun laws" quote is just designed to shock. I think it's primarily used as a counter-argument to those who argue that guns are uniquely unregulated. Popular arguments-by-analogy from the gun control crowd are that guns are less regulated than toys or less regulated than cars. Both assertions are false, and neither speaks to the problem of how best to ensure rights while protecting public safety. Neither does the "20,000 gun laws" quote. I think we can all agree that there are lots of laws about when, where, and how guns may be fired, carried, purchased or manufactured. The question is, are they the right laws, or do some need to be added or removed?

[Jason McCullough]

Think I've got it:

"There's 20,000 gun laws!"
"Yeah, but 99% of them are duplicate local laws. How many apply to me, living in NYC"?
"Oh. 320."

It's a two orders of magnitude difference there.

[Lizard_King]

Think I've got it:

"There's 20,000 gun laws!"
"Yeah, but 99% of them are duplicate local laws. How many apply to me, living in NYC"?
"Oh. 320."

It's a two orders of magnitude difference there.

Well, what if you then tell the NYC resident that the sum of those 320 laws means that only celebrities and politicians can own guns? Surely there must be a qualitative aspect to every quantitative argument, and 320 still sounds like a shitload of specifications to an alleged right.

[Jason McCullough]

How many laws do you think there are related to free speech? You could probably generate a comparable number by adding up all the parade/protest ordinances in localities.

I'm not arguing that there's too many or too little, I just think the 20000 number is wildly misleading.

[JessicaM]

Serendipitously, this showed up in my mailbox today. I thought it was good for a smile:


According to the US Dept. of Health & Human Services

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes, eighty million).
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gunowners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.

Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.

(As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers, for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.)

[mrbloo]

And the accidental death statistic for doctors comes from?
And the number of murders committed by doctors is?

Yeah, I know it's a joke, but I've seen this constant abuse of statistics by the pro-gun crowd to justify keeping America awash in guns. Not that the anti-gun crowd are any better. Looking for objective statistics about guns is just about impossible with both sides beating their agenda down everyone's throats.

[Jason McCullough]

Actually, 15% of the public doesn't have health insurance, so they probably don't have a doctor.

[Linoleum]

Actually, 15% of the public doesn't have health insurance, so they probably don't have a doctor.

If your aim is on par with your ability to stay on topic, maybe I do have to rethink my position on gun control. :D

[Jason McCullough]

The initial topic was government controls on power armor and nukes, right?

[bmulligan]

15% with no heath insurance. But if any of them were in an accident, they could go to any emergency room in the country and get medical attention. And they could always pay for their own doctors visits.

I spend over $10,000 a year on health insurance and have often wondered if the $150 doctor visit every few months or so wouldn't be a cheaper alternative. My $3000 surgery this year still leaves me $7000 in the hole which I could have used for other investments.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, but that $10,000 premium will cover a million dollar operation.

As to the "emergency room" red herring that gets so much play, you know you pay for that with your tax dollars, right? And you can only get immediate treatment for something; you can't very well get free chemotherapy that way.

[bmulligan]

Ok, so give me some stats on how may people die from untreated cancer resulting from lack of health insurance.................I'm waiting..............


And, yes, I pay for the free treatment others receive who can't or refuse to pay for, through my insurance premiums.

Some people also choose not to have health insurance. That was my point.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/may22_02/uninsured_healthcare.html

"The lack of health insurance in America leads to delayed diagnoses, life-threatening complications and, ultimately, 18,000 premature deaths each year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine. In the first comprehensive study of the medical consequences of going without insurance, researchers commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found that "being uninsured for even a year appears to diminish a person's general health."

[bmulligan]

that's great Jason, more people die from the Flu every year. And there's really nothing a doctor can do for you except tell you to drink fluids, take asprin, and rest. You're going to have to find more dead people to get me interested in saving the world from the evil lack of health insurance.

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, you asked.

[Midnight Son]

bmulligan's motto: "If it moves, it's VC."

(Vietcong, for you youngsters.)

[Robert Sharp]

Jessica's mailer is really interesting though. It does a good job of showing how people talk around this issue. If you asked people that were for gun control whether or not they were worried about "accidental deaths" I think most would say "No!" What they are worried about is being shot...intentionally by someone who has a gun. Right wingers such as Liddy like to point out that if guns were banned only criminals would have guns and we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from them. That may be true, but here are the stats I want to see before I will believe that it makes any difference:

1. How many gun crimes are committed by people who have never been charged with a crime before (in other words, how many are crimes of passion or of the moment, done by people who are not career criminals, but just happen to have guns...as 80 mill Americans do). This stat is important to me because I think if guns were banned these people would NOT know how to get them or be able to "get them anyway" in the way that Liddy suggests "criminals" would. I know that I would not know how to do so, even if there were a strong black market in them. And if they were illegal I would not WANT to buy one and I think many Americans would feel the same way.

2. How many gun crimes have been prevented because the intended victim owned a gun. this might be hard to figure out because some of these might have been prevented by the mere presence of a gun. However, I am not sure how a criminal would know whether or not you have a gun in your home. Still, the closest we might be able to come to this would be to find out how many people have been shot while trying to commit a crime (shot by civilians/non-law enforcement types).

3. What is our gun crime rate per capita compared to other countries that have banned guns. Accroding to many studies, the U.S. has more gun fatalities per capita than any other country, but I will grant that we need to make sure such studies are unbiased. perhaps these studies have so far been funded by gun control lobbyists. Let's get an unbiased study, if we can.

There are other figures I would like to see, but these 3 are the main ones.

Oh, and I am for banning plasma weapons and against Kalle holding all our ammo.

[Rywill]

And the accidental death statistic for doctors comes from?
And the number of murders committed by doctors is?
More to the point, doctors have a beneficial effect that vastly outweighs the deaths they cause. What is the overwhelming beneficial effect of guns? I don't think there is one. I'm against gun control anyway because I'm libertarian and because the Constitution says so, but don't come over here pretending that guns are less dangerous than doctors, or society is safer with more guns, or any of that. I don't think any of that stuff is true.

Guns, in my view, are like drugs and alcohol: most users don't use them to harm others; most of the danger involved is to the user; but there is some significant risk of harm to others. Even so, the morally right thing is to regulate the harm (outlaw shooting people) and not the tool (don't outlaw guns). Responsible users should not have to pay the price for a minority of irresponsible users.

[Kyle Wilson]

1. How many gun crimes are committed by people who have never been charged with a crime before

Precious few. If you're really interested in stats like this, I recommend you check out Targeting Guns, by Gary Kleck. Kleck writes, "In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally."

Writer Don Kates adds, "The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Both quotes come from an article on the subject at GunCite (www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html)


2. How many gun crimes have been prevented because the intended victim owned a gun.

No one really has any clue. Measuring the number of criminals shot is a very bad metric, though. Surveys range very widely from about 80,000 - 2 million crimes prevented every year by the presence of a firearm.

3. What is our gun crime rate per capita compared to other countries that have banned guns. Accroding to many studies, the U.S. has more gun fatalities per capita than any other country

Gun fatalities are irrelevant. The interesting question is, what happens to the overall homicide rate, regardless of means, and what happens to the overall suicide rate, regardless of means. I don't care how someone kills me, I care about not being killed at all.

Check out these tables of statistics on violent death (www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html) and homicide (www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html). More useful statistics can be found at WHO (www.who.int), if you're willing to dig for them.

[Dave Markell]

I made a post similar to this one in another gun control thread, but it's relevant here too. Comparing the incidence of homicides/violent crime in the US to those of other countries can be very informative.

Two excellent examples are England and Switzerland. In England, it's very difficult for a private citizen to own a gun, and even the police rarely resort to firearms. The homicide rate is lower than that of the US by an order of magnitude or more. Gun control advocates love to point to England as an example of the wonderful type of society we could enjoy if we followed their model, but they may be reversing cause and effect.

In Switzerland, every male is required by law to serve in the military. Upon discharge, they are issued an assault rifle and ammunition, which they must keep in their primary residence at all times. In others words, almost every Swiss household boasts some serious, military-grade firepower and men who know how to use it. The homicide rate in Switzerland--surprise!--is also lower than that of the US by an order of magnitude. The NRA and other gun advocates love to point to Switzerland as an example of the wonderful type of society we could enjoy if we followed their model, but they too may be reversing cause and effect.

I find these examples fascinating. Obviously, gun control can work (England). Obviously, arming your population can also work (Switzerland). I think any coherent model can work, depending on the underlying sociocultural milieu. To come down firmly on one side while villifying the other is just silly.

Which approach is best for the US? That's a tricky question. The second ammendment pushes us away from the English model, but our society is far less homogenous and civil than that of Switzerland, so I don't think that giving everyone an assault rifle makes much sense either. The best approach is probably to focus on the underlying cause of violence in American society instead of the guns themselves.

[bmulligan]

The best approach is probably to focus on the underlying cause of violence in American society instead of the guns themselves.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Has a nice ring to it, or is that recoil?

[Dave Markell]

Has the ring of truth to it. Again, look at the Swiss example. An assault rifle in every home, and a much, much lower rate of gun crime.

[Midnight Son]

The Swiss live in a total social security blanket, so what's your point?

[bmulligan]

the point is that the gun-control nuts want us all to live in a security blanket without guns. Therby leaving the criminals as the only ones armed.

[Dave Markell]

The Swiss live in a total social security blanket, so what's your point?

The point is that gun control doesn't have to be "the answer" to violent crime. There are multiple answers--it's not an either/or proposition. Peaceful societies can be heavily armed. Peaceful societies can be unarmed. Addressing the causes of violence in society are far more important than legislating gun ownership.

[Midnight Son]

I guess that getting the 40 million people or so we have below the poverty line above it couldn't hurt either? Comparing the US to Switzerland is silly.

[Dave Markell]

I guess that getting the 40 million people or so we have below the poverty line above it couldn't hurt either? Comparing the US to Switzerland is silly.

Do you ever actually read other people's posts? I said the key is to address the underlying causes of violence. Don't you think poverty could be one of those? Hmmm?

Comparisons are never silly. They are a key source of enlightenment--unless you can't be bothered to think. Or read.

[Midnight Son]

Don't be so sensitive. I agree with ya.

[Dave Markell]

Telling someone their comparisons are silly is a rather odd way of showing agreement.

[Robert Sharp]

Thanks Kyle and Dave. Those were both informative posts. Kyle, since I haven't read the work you are citing, do you feel pretty confident that it is mostly unbiased? Is it written from one position on the issue or another? I know it has to be to some extent, but I guess I am just making sure the data is trustworthy. At any rate, very interesting findings. I'll have to think about them a lot.

Still, to your response to question 3 I would say it DOES matter how people are killed. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun (psychologically as well as physically) than a knife or some other more intimate means. However, I concede your point and admit that I would like to see BOTH figures.

[Midnight Son]

Markell, I agree with: Addressing the causes of violence in society are far more important than legislating gun ownership.

I don't like the idea of totally uncontrolled gun ownership. I don't have a problem with driver's licenses. As a matter of fact, let's institute a shooting license test: minimal marksmanship, safety, cleaning and storage of weapons.

I imagine a few rednecks would fail and whine about their constitutional freedoms, yada yada.

Now about the Swiss: All male Swiss citizens between 20 and 50 who are in the army are issued rifles. Now this means they had a minimum of training in how to use them. Clearly this wouldn't work here in the US.

[Lizard_King]

I don't like the idea of totally uncontrolled gun ownership. I don't have a problem with driver's licenses. As a matter of fact, let's institute a shooting license test: minimal marksmanship, safety, cleaning and storage of weapons.

I imagine a few rednecks would fail and whine about their constitutional freedoms, yada yada.

Now about the Swiss: All male Swiss citizens between 20 and 50 who are in the army are issued rifles. Now this means they had a minimum of training in how to use them. Clearly this wouldn't work here in the US.
At least pretend to be honest. You don't like the idea of gun ownership, period, and this is your way of trying to find a remotely defensible way of stating it.
Once again, the burden of proof in America is on the government to prove what tangible benefits registration and licensing will have. You would have to be either disingenuous or fully ignorant of firearms to claim it is merely widespread incompetence that is the cause of your dissent with gun ownership...no examination of anybody's numbers, up to and including antigun advocates, would lead you to believe that is the root of the problem.
Guns are easy to use. They are the great equalizer. They make my 110lb girlfriend capable of defending herself against virtually any assailant. To oppose their ownership is to discriminate against the poor (who have a disproportionately greater need to defend themselves) and the weak, de facto.

[bmulligan]

I guess that getting the 40 million people or so we have below the poverty line above it couldn't hurt either? Comparing the US to Switzerland is silly.

So, are you implying that poor people are more prone to commit violent crime with firearms? Sounds like classism to me. Goddamn elitist. You probably think only rich people should have guns!

That poverty line is a very objective boundry too. Most of our 'poor' people live like kings compared to the rest of the world.

[Lizard_King]

I guess that getting the 40 million people or so we have below the poverty line above it couldn't hurt either? Comparing the US to Switzerland is silly.

So, are you implying that poor people are more prone to commit violent crime with firearms? Sounds like classism to me. Goddamn elitist. You probably think only rich people should have guns!

That poverty line is a very objective boundry too. Most of our 'poor' people live like kings compared to the rest of the world.

If you really dig a little deeper
Now about the Swiss: All male Swiss citizens between 20 and 50 who are in the army are issued rifles. Now this means they had a minimum of training in how to use them. Clearly this wouldn't work here in the US.
he's also tacitly advocating for the return of the draft in the US. Where did that magical Swiss training come from?

I wouldn't dig too much, though, if I were you.

[Midnight Son]

I tacitly advocate LK get a brain. I am not advocating a draft. I am advocating responsible gun ownership. No doubt many of you extremists would fail even a simple test.

As for you other idiots who can't read - we need to address the reasons poor folks ARE poor. Then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to buy a $25 gun and rip off your leetle girlfriend.

[Lizard_King]

I tacitly advocate LK get a brain. I am not advocating a draft. I am advocating responsible gun ownership. No doubt many of you extremists would fail even a simple test.

As for you other idiots who can't read - we need to address the reasons poor folks ARE poor. Then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to buy a $25 gun and rip off your leetle girlfriend.

It is not a failure of reading comprehension on our part. It is clearly you that cannot string together a logical line of thought to save your life. You turn every thread into a socialist nightmare.

[Midnight Son]

And you, sir, turn every thread into an anarchist manifesto.

[Jason McCullough]

Wouldn't a socialist nightmare be living under Francisco Franco? Who knew he ruled this thread!

[Lizard_King]

Wouldn't a socialist nightmare be living under Francisco Franco? Who knew he ruled this thread!

I thought your lackey was looking a little lonely. Thanks for adding your 2 cents.

[Midnight Son]

Sorry, LK, no last word for you! And I got your lackey right here!

[Kyle Wilson]

Thanks Kyle and Dave. Those were both informative posts. Kyle, since I haven't read the work you are citing, do you feel pretty confident that it is mostly unbiased? Is it written from one position on the issue or another?

I think Kleck's unbiased, but those inclined to disagree with his conclusions disagree, of course. As far as I can tell, he's an interested academic, not an ideologue. He doesn't argue that all gun control laws are useless and that everyone should be armed. The legislation he supports is pretty different from what actually gets passed or proposed, though.

If nothing else, Kleck does a very good job of gathering data from a wide variety of sources. After reading his book, you'll be familiar with all the research out there on the effects of gun laws, even if you disagree with the conclusions he reaches in the end.