Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

[Felch]

I was going to dig up crime rates by nation and I came across this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

It's highly unlikely that Finland has five times the crime rate of Russia. I think that some countries might be including petty crimes while others (like India and Yemen) ignore just about everything.

[KrazyHorse]

Gun control is not a nonsensical solution. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that populations with more gun control laws have less gun crime.

I'm not arguing with you (nor am I agreeing with you) on the merits of gun control.

What I AM doing is explaining why your criticism of spencer's position is retarded.

[Felch]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

This chart seems a bit more plausible*. Some countries are still probably underreporting, but it's not as extreme.

It shows the US sitting between Bulgaria and Armenia. South Africa, which has very tight gun control, is up near the top. Switzerland, which has widespread firearm possession, is near the bottom. Finland, a relatively gun loving country, is right smack in the middle.

I think that you'd have a tough time correlating murder rates to gun ownership. It seems as though law enforcement efficacy is more relevant. Columbia and South Africa are at the top, with the Swiss and Japanese down at the tail end.

*Plausible is defined here as "Confirming my prejudices."

[Wezil]

Yes. It's called the former Soviet Union. But they don't so much "manufacture" as "dig up."

Your country is no slouch when it comes to international weapons sales.

I was referring to the domestic market.

[Lorizael]

I'm not arguing with you (nor am I agreeing with you) on the merits of gun control.

What I AM doing is explaining why your criticism of spencer's position is retarded.

Except that your analogy is flawed. If I present a solution that is partially effective, and someone else argues against that solution because it is not completely effective, but they have no alternative solution, not supporting the partially effective solution until a better solution can be found is nonsensical.

[KrazyHorse]

Please stop taking the ****** pills, Lori.

Spencer's argument against gun control is not that it's only partially effective at reducing crime/violence against innocents; his argument is that gun control is only partially effective at eliminating guns, and thus might well INCREASE the danger to innocents.

I don't defend this claim. If you want to provide evidence to argue against it then please feel free. But the line of reasoning which you were following in attacking his claim previously was idiotic.

[Lorizael]

Please stop taking the ****** pills, Lori.

Spencer's argument against gun control is not that it's only partially effective at reducing crime/violence against innocents; his argument is that gun control is only partially effective at eliminating guns, and thus might well INCREASE the danger to innocents.

I don't defend this claim. If you want to provide evidence to argue against it then please feel free. But the line of reasoning which you were following in attacking his claim previously was idiotic.

I've gotten off track. I should restate this. Spencer's position is ridiculous to me because I don't think he or essentially any other advocate of gun ownership actually desires a solution that involves a reduction in the number of guns owned by criminals. They believe too heavily that any form of gun control involves taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and as such are blind to the idea that gun control can be a good thing. I don't believe that most gun control advocates would jump on board a magic wand solution that got rid of all guns, because what most gun advocates really want is just that - guns.

[rah]

Not everyone. I believe in gun ownership but I have no problem with ANY restrictions that would make it harder to own one. I just want them to be enforceable and have strong penalties so it can be used against criminals. If private citizens have to jump through a few more hoops in order to make it a more difficult for criminals, fine, that's the price you pay to keep your guns.

[Lorizael]

My actual stance - and this isn't based on anything constitutional - is that people who don't know how to use guns shouldn't be allowed to own them. I'm fine with just about anybody owning a weapon so long as they are well trained and stable.

[rah]

Agreed, and put whatever restriction necessary to make it hard for those that don't to be denied.

[bc1871]

When the citizenry are well armed, they are much safer from both the criminal element and the tyranny of government.

[rah]

But not from themselves, since most murders are committed by people that know their victim. You have to weigh that into the equation.

[Az]

I know my handguns will make me safe from the tyranny of government.

*Has his condo obliterated by an airstrike*



I don't think that crime in the USA is caused by the guns. But I don't think that those guns are much of a deterrent either. It's more of a feel-good solution for *YOU* making *YOURSELF* safe from the big bad world out there. The public safety version of bootstraps. YOU being your own man in the world. I guess that's why it works so well with americans.

[Arrian]

I don't think that crime in the USA is caused by the guns. But I don't think that those guns are much of a deterrent either. It's more of a feel-good solution for *YOU* making *YOURSELF* safe from the big bad world out there. The public safety version of bootstraps. YOU being your own man in the world. I guess that's why it works so well with americans.

This sounds exactly right to me.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

I don't have any handguns. I guess that's why agents from the government knock on my door every evening and push me around for about half an hour. It's really starting to get annoying.