Tweet
--"WIthout playing the constitution card, someone please give me 10 good reasons what benefit guns bring to society."
They're equalizers. They can give a 90 lb woman the ability to resist a 250 lb man. They give those who have something better to do with their time than constant weapons training a way to resist those who just want to beat everyone else into submission (ie. most to all fuedal lords). This is probably the most important reason; they give the weak a way to resist the strong.
--"That is what local and federal agencies like police and military are for."
These are some of the main groups we need protection from, actually...
And even if you are assuming the police are at your beck and call for defense, they can't be everwhere at once. Response times average 10 minutes or more in most areas. What are you supposed to do for those 10 minutes (assuming you can get to a phone, dial 911, explain the situation and tell them where you are)? Tell the guy he needs to embrace his inner-child and that it's not nice to mug people?
--"I'd like to see a source on that one."
This has been provided. Note that, unlike most of the pro-gun-control studies, this one was actually done by a criminologist who publishes in peer-review criminology journals. Most of the ones going the other way seem to be doctors publishing in medical journals and the like.
--"No. Easily refuted by showing European suicide rates in comparison to Japan's."
And the argument that was made prior to that is easily refuted by pointing to, say, the Swiss murder rates. That's my point. These kind of comparisons are far too simplistic to have any validity.
If anyone had actually bothered to look at the FBI UCR, you'd notice that non-gun related murders in the US make up around than 40% of the total. This means that even if you assume that every murder committed with a gun would not happen if they were banned, the US would still have a murder rate significantly higher than that of Europe. Since a fair chunk of gun-related murders seem also to be drug or gang related, it's pretty obvious that those murders would not just disappear. This rather points to a reason for the US murder rate besides gun ownership.
--"I'm personally against the war on drugs, so, what is your point?"
That we're looking at the wrong area. I'm glad you're against the WoD, but the government shouldn't be pushing it. We have historical evidence to suggest that this is a (if not the single biggest) reason behind the violent crime rates in the US. Just looking at violent crime rates over time as compared to the beginning and end of Prohibition and the beginning of the War on Drugs is very educational.
--"This is because guns are legal. If they weren't, it would not be so easy. I assure you."
This is through illegal means, not legal. Banning guns would not make a significant change here, if it had any effect at all.
--"It's also a lot harder to conceal a gun than it is to conceal drugs"
Note that I said "in ton lots". I'm not talking about a condom full of crack, I'm talking about major shipments.
--"As far as drunk drivers, yeah, we should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
In he case I mentioned, the driver was not drunk. This was premeditated murder, pure and simple.
--"Take away the guns, no accidental shootings in the household."
Accidental shootings have been on a sharp decline lately, largely thanks to things like the NRA education programs. It is not at all difficult to teach a child that if they see a gun they should get an adult. Basic firearm safety is also not hard to learn (check the safety, check for chambered rounds, etc). Many of these accidental shootings are in homes where plenty of other dangers exist (one of the school shootings, for instance, was by a kid who found a gun, stolen no less, that his mother's boyfriend had left lying around in what was basically a crackhouse). I don't care what you do, these places will never be safe for children.
Not to mention that more kids currently drown in swimming pools than are accidentaly killed by a gun. No one's calling for a license to own a swimming pool.
That some people misuse their rights or are careless are not sufficent (nor suitable) arguments for taking away a right.
--"Does that go for local and state as well?"
IIRC, the ruling was specifically in regards to state and local law enforcement. Federal agencies usually do not have jurisdiction over most violent crimes, including murder.
--"No life, no ability to enjoy those rights. I think you need to reprioritize."
No other rights, you won't have a life either. All rights are equally important, and you cannot allow infrigement of one without damaging the others.
--"Tell it to Europeans"
I am. It's not my fault they decided they'd prefer government promises of safety. It is the easy way out, since excercising rights requires an effort. Just keep in mind that the US Bill of Rights was based on English Common Law, and that does include the right to bear arms.
--"Most of you yahoos are too stupid/and or irresponcible to handle weapons."
Ideas are far more dangerous than guns. Ideas have killed far more people throughout history, and are a lot harder to handle responsibly. Guess it's time to bring in the PsiCops.
--"Now today, you can get a saturday night special for 20-25 bucks if you knew where to look."
No one who knows anything about guns buys those things. They're dangerous to handle (if only because low-quality construction could cause untimely jamming), and that small calibre has little stopping power. The kind of people who want to use guns for crimes tend to have little patience for the kind of firing-range practice it requires to become dangerous with that calibre, and if they have the patience (and the firing-range membership) they can certainly afford a decent gun.
Besides, do you have something against poor people? They're most likely to be living in high-crime areas, which means they're the most likely people to benefit from owning a weapon. Since most defensive gun usages are nothing more than showing the gun, a saturday night special works adequately for the purpose, and sometimes that's all they can afford.
--"Last I checked, Europe and America are both democratic places"
Can't speak for all of Europe, but America is not a democratic place. It is a republican (not in the Elephant party sense) place. There's a reason the song is "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".
--"3% of all crimes were committed with assault weapons"
It was more like 1%, IIRC. However, "assault weapon" was a made-up category for the purpose of getting the bill passed. If you look at the language used, it basically means guns that are photogenicly suited to a gun-control argument (things like flash-suppressors and folding stocks are part of the argument).
Wraith
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
-- Sammy "the Bull" Gravano
They're equalizers. They can give a 90 lb woman the ability to resist a 250 lb man. They give those who have something better to do with their time than constant weapons training a way to resist those who just want to beat everyone else into submission (ie. most to all fuedal lords). This is probably the most important reason; they give the weak a way to resist the strong.
--"That is what local and federal agencies like police and military are for."
These are some of the main groups we need protection from, actually...
And even if you are assuming the police are at your beck and call for defense, they can't be everwhere at once. Response times average 10 minutes or more in most areas. What are you supposed to do for those 10 minutes (assuming you can get to a phone, dial 911, explain the situation and tell them where you are)? Tell the guy he needs to embrace his inner-child and that it's not nice to mug people?
--"I'd like to see a source on that one."
This has been provided. Note that, unlike most of the pro-gun-control studies, this one was actually done by a criminologist who publishes in peer-review criminology journals. Most of the ones going the other way seem to be doctors publishing in medical journals and the like.
--"No. Easily refuted by showing European suicide rates in comparison to Japan's."
And the argument that was made prior to that is easily refuted by pointing to, say, the Swiss murder rates. That's my point. These kind of comparisons are far too simplistic to have any validity.
If anyone had actually bothered to look at the FBI UCR, you'd notice that non-gun related murders in the US make up around than 40% of the total. This means that even if you assume that every murder committed with a gun would not happen if they were banned, the US would still have a murder rate significantly higher than that of Europe. Since a fair chunk of gun-related murders seem also to be drug or gang related, it's pretty obvious that those murders would not just disappear. This rather points to a reason for the US murder rate besides gun ownership.
--"I'm personally against the war on drugs, so, what is your point?"
That we're looking at the wrong area. I'm glad you're against the WoD, but the government shouldn't be pushing it. We have historical evidence to suggest that this is a (if not the single biggest) reason behind the violent crime rates in the US. Just looking at violent crime rates over time as compared to the beginning and end of Prohibition and the beginning of the War on Drugs is very educational.
--"This is because guns are legal. If they weren't, it would not be so easy. I assure you."
This is through illegal means, not legal. Banning guns would not make a significant change here, if it had any effect at all.
--"It's also a lot harder to conceal a gun than it is to conceal drugs"
Note that I said "in ton lots". I'm not talking about a condom full of crack, I'm talking about major shipments.
--"As far as drunk drivers, yeah, we should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
In he case I mentioned, the driver was not drunk. This was premeditated murder, pure and simple.
--"Take away the guns, no accidental shootings in the household."
Accidental shootings have been on a sharp decline lately, largely thanks to things like the NRA education programs. It is not at all difficult to teach a child that if they see a gun they should get an adult. Basic firearm safety is also not hard to learn (check the safety, check for chambered rounds, etc). Many of these accidental shootings are in homes where plenty of other dangers exist (one of the school shootings, for instance, was by a kid who found a gun, stolen no less, that his mother's boyfriend had left lying around in what was basically a crackhouse). I don't care what you do, these places will never be safe for children.
Not to mention that more kids currently drown in swimming pools than are accidentaly killed by a gun. No one's calling for a license to own a swimming pool.
That some people misuse their rights or are careless are not sufficent (nor suitable) arguments for taking away a right.
--"Does that go for local and state as well?"
IIRC, the ruling was specifically in regards to state and local law enforcement. Federal agencies usually do not have jurisdiction over most violent crimes, including murder.
--"No life, no ability to enjoy those rights. I think you need to reprioritize."
No other rights, you won't have a life either. All rights are equally important, and you cannot allow infrigement of one without damaging the others.
--"Tell it to Europeans"
I am. It's not my fault they decided they'd prefer government promises of safety. It is the easy way out, since excercising rights requires an effort. Just keep in mind that the US Bill of Rights was based on English Common Law, and that does include the right to bear arms.
--"Most of you yahoos are too stupid/and or irresponcible to handle weapons."
Ideas are far more dangerous than guns. Ideas have killed far more people throughout history, and are a lot harder to handle responsibly. Guess it's time to bring in the PsiCops.
--"Now today, you can get a saturday night special for 20-25 bucks if you knew where to look."
No one who knows anything about guns buys those things. They're dangerous to handle (if only because low-quality construction could cause untimely jamming), and that small calibre has little stopping power. The kind of people who want to use guns for crimes tend to have little patience for the kind of firing-range practice it requires to become dangerous with that calibre, and if they have the patience (and the firing-range membership) they can certainly afford a decent gun.
Besides, do you have something against poor people? They're most likely to be living in high-crime areas, which means they're the most likely people to benefit from owning a weapon. Since most defensive gun usages are nothing more than showing the gun, a saturday night special works adequately for the purpose, and sometimes that's all they can afford.
--"Last I checked, Europe and America are both democratic places"
Can't speak for all of Europe, but America is not a democratic place. It is a republican (not in the Elephant party sense) place. There's a reason the song is "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".
--"3% of all crimes were committed with assault weapons"
It was more like 1%, IIRC. However, "assault weapon" was a made-up category for the purpose of getting the bill passed. If you look at the language used, it basically means guns that are photogenicly suited to a gun-control argument (things like flash-suppressors and folding stocks are part of the argument).
Wraith
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
-- Sammy "the Bull" Gravano
Comment