Gun Control

[DasFuchs]

Can I point out something?  Pro-gun =! against gun control.

Some of us simply disagree on the type of gun control we think would be the best.

I for one do not want guns in the hands of criminals and mass murderers I just want that law abiding sensible people are allowed to legally own guns.

The only issue is pretty much any law or rule you make isn't gonna stop criminals from getting them. That's the main issue at this point. People cry for more control like it's going to stop anything, especially when it doesn't even go after the main guns used in gun crimes, aka the Assault Weapons Ban.


Booley, while I understand you're trying to prove yourself right, jumping around the world and comparing countries with different political systems, cultures, backgrounds, diversity and a host of other factors isn't going to say much.

Some gun laws do work. 1930 machine gun restriction worked, of course the main push at the time was organized crime in the bootlegging business. So it may have worked well or just a little.

Your argument against the list of things that lead to crime is that guns are used in robberies and murder, as if these are not influenced by poverty, bad living conditions, gang related, or lack of education. It's like one person says "this wall is white" and you counter with "It's eggshell white"

and how is a gun not a tool of defense or tool of crime? I think you've got some blinders on to what's being said and running off to shout how those people are all wrong and cobble together bad examples to show it.

[booley]

......
The only issue is pretty much any law or rule you make isn't gonna stop criminals from getting them. That's the main issue at this point. ....

Actually I think the issue is that so many assume that.. and then insist the rest of us to accept that assumption without good reason.

Tracking straw purchases and changing re gifting without a paper trail probably would stop some criminals.  Limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a day could have an effect.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-ends-monthly-one-gun-purchase-limit/article_55c95c91-8638-5973-bdb5-c13f93813447.html

At the least they would make it harder for criminals to get guns.  They would have to work harder at it.

But legal gun owners could still get guns.

If some gun laws  do work as you said (after saying gun laws don't work),  then obviously we can stop (or limit) criminals getting guns with gun laws.  Which is the point of any law.

But somehow we are supposed to pretend that isn't so.  we never get any reason why this shouldn't be so.  We are just supposed to accept it on faith that gun laws are always a bad idea.

Twice now in this thread alone,  I have seen at least two people respond to me saying "gun laws dont' work" and then later say some gun laws do work.  You even gave an example.

.....and without a hint of cognitive dissonance to acknowledge this discrepancy.

That's my issue right now.  I dont' think you guys have thought this through.

Ok that was my main point and I should just leave it but when have I ever made a post short when I could make it long?  Though maybe it was making my post long that made you miss what I was saying...

jumping around the world and comparing countries with different political systems, cultures, backgrounds, diversity and a host of other factors isn't going to say much.

I jumped twice.. first to australia.  to prove a single point.. provide an example where a law regulating guns worked.  That was it.  Whether that exact law would work here or if we could change it or if we should try something else wasn't even brought up by me as i recall.

Oh and you are making a Genetic Fallacy.  There's no reason why something from another country/culture couldn't work here (nor why it couldn't be modified)  that argument is refuted by every child in kindergarten and every person who votes. Not saying that particular law would work here. I'm saying being an Australian law doesnt' automatically mean it wouldn't work here.  (did you catch how much I am bothered by fallacious arguments?)

And the second time to make a single point that guns don't really protect freedom.  Countries with strict gun laws are still free.  There are dictatorships with lots of private gun owners.  It's hardly unfair to use a global perspective when the claim I was responding too had done the same. (obviously material defender was talking about government control ove rall, not just in the united states)

and since you didnt' get my point on that, it's probably not surprising that you would say...

Your argument against the list of things that lead to crime is that guns are used in robberies and murder..

I didn't use other country's statistics to talk about causes of gun violence so this statement seems a non sequitur. Or maybe you just abruptly changed points (I do that so it's possible)  but in any case you again missed what I was saying...

According to FBI and CDC statistics, the majority of gun deaths aren't caused by gang bangers or muggers or bank robbers.

According to the statistics "The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%)" and of homicide " arguments were the leading cause, accounting for 41% of the murders.".  Where motive of  murder was known, homicides committed in the course of a crime was 22%

And just so we are clear, if you murder someone you are a criminal, even if you never even got a parking ticket before then.  So limiting a discussion about gun violence to career criminals is cherry picking.

I didnt' mention poverty. I didn't talk about it. Poverty could be a factor. It probably is.  Poverty can be stressful.  And I live in the city where I encounter people who have a hyper aggressive mentality( one guy almost ran me down and his response to my getting out of the way was to threaten to beat me up)

However, the picture isn't as material defender painted it.  Gang bangers are a problem but they aren't the leading cause of gun deaths.  People being suicidal or losing their temper is.

Do you really think that rich people never get depressed or angry or have spousal abuse?

SO if you want to criticize my argument, you need to deal with the statistics I gave, not on what I didn't say.

how is a gun not a tool of defense or tool of crime?

I thought i had explained that.  But let me try again.

Can a gun act as a shield to stop bullets?

If you can show me how having a gun can stop bullets that have already been fired, I will accept your argument.

I did give a list of ways a gun could hypothetically allow one to defend oneself by shooting back.  Each one based on an assumption of what had happened up to that point.  And sometimes those assumptions come true.  But many times they do not. And in any case, the bullets already fired still remain dangerous, whether the victim is armed or not.

I mean here's an observation:  The US ranks among near or at the top in privately owned guns in the first world. And the US also ranks among near or at the top in gun deaths in the first world. 

Putting aside if lots of guns cause gun deaths...  IF guns were a true defense against other guns and not just situational, wouldn't the above be the opposite?

(and dont' give me another genetic fallacy please)

Ok so here's my point one more time:

When you accuse me of having blinders on, it looks like projection.  Not saying you have to be perfect at arguing but stuff like this makes me think you guys aren't thinking about this at all. You just accept it on faith that gun laws don't work and this apparently then causes you to make really bad arguments.

I know you will bristle at the comparison but this is like talking to someone from Rapture Ready, who starts out with a forgone conclusion and then makes any claim needed to reach that conclusion even when the way they got there demolished said conclusion.  (Because getting to the "right answer" was all that mattered, not if the conclusion was actually valid). And they don't even know they did it.

Still don't believe me?

Then consider this.

you and material defender have clearly been arguing me on what you think my position on gun control is.

My position is that gun control laws can work to reduce gun deaths.

Both you and material defender are in agreement with me.

Even as you argue against my position, you share it.



My problem is you are so caught up arguing your article of faith ("gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.") that you guys don't even seem to be aware of this.

Or to put it this way.. my specific problem that I expressed on this thread isn't about gun laws per se.

It's that so many who say stuff like "gun control laws dont' work " keep reminding me of this..

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y</a>

Remember.. until you murder someone, I only have your words to judge if you are competent enough to have a deadly weapon.

[DasFuchs]

Actually I think the issue is that so many assume that.. and then insist the rest of us to accept that assumption without good reason.

Tracking straw purchases and changing re gifting without a paper trail probably would stop some criminals.  Limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a day could have an effect.

Yes, but let's ban these evil looking rifles, restrict mag capacity, don't you dare take a part off, and so on and make it a huge criminal offense if any of that is even slightly violated is useless. It controls me, the guy that wants to remain law abiding. It does nothing for the people running around doing the crime.

By the way, straw purchases for the intent of criminal mischief is already illegal. So how many more laws you want on that?

Twice now in this thread alone,  I have seen at least two people respond to me saying "gun laws dont' work" and then later say some gun laws do work.  You even gave an example.

.....and without a hint of cognitive dissonance to acknowledge this discrepancy.

That's my issue right now.  I dont' think you guys have thought this through.

I think you're too busy reading what you want and taking the most literal and direct meaning to stand up and poke holes in. Kinda like the joking over Fred's 39mm ammo

I jumped twice.. first to australia.  to prove a single point.. provide an example where a law regulating guns worked.  That was it.  Whether that exact law would work here or if we could change it or if we should try something else wasn't even brought up by me as i recall.

Oh and you are making a Genetic Fallacy.  There's no reason why something from another country/culture couldn't work here (nor why it couldn't be modified)  that argument is refuted by every child in kindergarten and every person who votes. Not saying that particular law would work here. I'm saying being an Australian law doesnt' automatically mean it wouldn't work here.  (did you catch how much I am bothered by fallacious arguments?)

And what was their gun crime prior? What's their violent crime now? Compare that to the US, or the UK, or Finland, or Somalia. No, it doesn't mean it couldn't work, but implying "it works there, it'll work here" is quite the brazen stance.

According to FBI and CDC statistics, the majority of gun deaths aren't caused by gang bangers or muggers or bank robbers.

And who said those were the only catagories? robberies don't need to be just bank robbers or muggers, nor does gang related mean they have to only be the gang bangers.

Can a gun act as a shield to stop bullets?

I think this shows my assumption you're reading what you want and responding to it like it was the most literal meaning.
Guns don't need to act as a shield to defend. That cop that got a perp to give up because he had a gun while the perp didn't, that's defense. The person that's woke up in the middle of the night because people are robbing his house, his gun is for defense. In poorer parts of the world where people that don't have the strength or firepower to defend themselves until they grab a gun, that's defense.
Defense doesn't mean "makes a shield"


Btw, felt I should add; Mythbusters has shown that guns can block bullets and bullets can block bullets. It may be highly unlikely one will, but they can

My position is that gun control laws can work to reduce gun deaths.

I have no qualms with that and agree, but the laws need to be reasonable as in actually addressing the issue instead of being another knee jerk reaction multiple gun law that already exists but people don't know it does.
Banning or heavily restricting a gun because it looks evil and the other trite bullcrap that's been waved around is what I'm against.
What gun law would have stopped this mall shooter that doesn't already exist? How will it stop another?

[Damen]

The stats I am about to post can be found here: http://www.gunpolicy.org

I feel I should just point out that Australia currently has 15 legally owned firearms per 100 people and the number of firearm homicides stood at 30 in 2009.

By contrast, Switzerland has 45.7 legally owned firearms per 100 citizens and the number of firearm homicides there in 2009 was 55.

In the Netherlands, they have 3.9 legal firearms per 100 civilians and the total number of firearm homicides in 2009 was 55.

Also, Australia has an estimated 550k to 6 million illicit firearms still in country.

[Material Defender]

@Balooy since I'm not bothering quoting that giant text block and I'm not playing the chop up the quote game. Cause that annoys me.

I'm not saying that things can't work. I'm just saying don't be surprised if a solution that worked with one culture/geography/religion is not always a one size fits all. There's not a fallacy is being cautious. Something might work, it might not work. Assumptions one way or the other is dumb.

Anyways, the way you were talking I could only come to the assumption you were pushing for gun bans or extreme gun control. If you are for reasonable gun control to a degree that sounds pretty decent. Just you seem to be missing some of what I'm saying.

I'm saying the historical precedence for arms control is controlling your population. It never really works since if there's a demand, the supply will meet it. The people who instituted a drug ban seem to forget that. I'm telling you the strongest reason why I tend to oppose gun bans and the like. Crime statistics like below reinforce such assumptions.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
 Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
 Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
 During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
 Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
 Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
 At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
 Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

And I was never saying that there aren't murders by angry white people. I had my focus in a certain aspect, so there's that.

Sorry if I got tangential in my argument, it's a super bad problem of mine. I don't intend to, but it happens.

[Atheissimo]

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
 Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
 Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
 During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
 Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
 Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
 At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
 Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

Is that necessarily anything to do with guns though? I don't know about Australia, but in the UK barely anybody had a handgun anyway. There isn't really a gun culture.

Then, as now, the vast majority of guns were in rural areas and mostly consisted of shotguns and rifles for hunting and pest control. I don't know of anybody that had a personal firearm for home defence even when that was legal.

Most of the people that had handguns were criminals, and the law stopped at least some of the pettier criminals like addicts and burglars from being armed, due to the cost and difficulty of getting a gun due to the law. Obviously being an island helps because it's easier to prevent smuggling.

[booley]

...

.... It controls me, the guy that wants to remain law abiding.

So do traffic  laws. Yet can you still drive?

Since I'm a  teetotaller should we get rid of laws against drunk driving?  I dont' launder money.  So should we not have money laundering since it puts a control on my actions?

.It does nothing for the people running around doing the crime.

.

AND YET even you admitted this is not true. Gun control laws can work. they can do something about the crime.

hey, remember this?

Some gun laws do work. 1930 machine gun restriction worked, of course the main push at the time was organized crime in the bootlegging business.

and I debunked it earlier and quite easily. All I had to do was find even one example of a gun law that did something to fix the problem of gun violence.

I found two.

And this my problem.  I warned you about these kinds of absolutist statements and what alogical trap makign one is.  And after I pointed out the trap with it's big hole and sharp sticks at the bottom, you said "ok" and jumped right in .. again.

By the way, straw purchases for the intent of criminal mischief is already illegal.

Not if you regift within the same state. And state laws differ.  (which is why bans in chicago DC had such problems.  People could just drive to where gun laws were looser)
And the laws for tracking said straw purchases have been likened to swiss cheese.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

So hey, maybe we could start there.  Becuase we cant' really say we have too many laws if the laws we have don't work as well as they could. (indeed the number of laws is irrelevant. It's  does the friggin law work)

I think you're too busy reading what you want and taking the most literal and direct meaning to stand up and poke holes in.

I think you are.  and projecting.

I mean you say I am taking you out of context.. and then fail to provide what context I supposedly missed.

And what was their gun crime prior? What's their violent crime now? Compare that to the US, or the UK, or Finland, or Somalia. No, it doesn't mean it couldn't work, but implying "it works there, it'll work here" is quite the brazen stance.

for the purposes of this debate, we dont' even have to know exact figures.

We only have to know they were higher.

The issue there was "DO GUN CONTROL LAWS WORK?" and if they worked anywhere at all then the answer is yes.  Not would a specific law from Australia work here is transplanted whole cloth.

And you committed a genetic fallacy because the only response you could come up with was that australia is different.  Not how/how that difference is important or how this in any way shows gun control can never work here.  Australia is just.. different.

And frankly I'm tired of doing all this research while you just assert shit and never back any of it up.


So let me just cut right back to my point...

Time and time again people argue against

And who said those were the only catagories? robberies don't need to be just bank robbers or muggers, nor does gang related mean they have to only be the gang bangers.

Gee, who mentioned gangs and ghettos? Go back and you'll find it.

this stat came from the FBI.  Guns violence done while in the commision of a crime is not the leading cause.  Arguments are.

Your comment has nothing do with what I was even saying.

I think this shows my assumption you're reading what you want and responding to it like it was the most literal meaning.
Guns don't need to act as a shield to defend.

to defend against another person with a gun it does.

Otherwise the "defense" is situational, not inherent.

Plenty of people with gun get killed by other people with guns.  IF I shoot youf irst, you being armed does nothignt o protect you.

I explained this before.

That cop that got a perp to give up because he had a gun while the perp didn't, that's defense.

What if the perp did have a gun and shot first? What if the cop didnt' see him in time?  What is the cop thought another guy was the one firing at him?

That's all situational
(not to mention your scenario depends on the criminal NOT having a gun.  Well that would be helped by effective gun control laws)

The person that's woke up in the middle of the night because people are robbing his house, his gun is for defense.

What if the person doesn't wake up in time? What if the guy can't see because it's dark?  What if it's not a robber but his daughter sneaking in?
That's not only situational, it can easily go from defense to family tragedy.
It seems an alarm system would be more effective.

In poorer parts of the world where people that don't have the strength or firepower to defend themselves until they grab a gun, that's defense.

That's a specific case  to countries in the midst of a war.

AND that's probably the weakest of all because it assumes that the attackers are similarily armed.

But in Iraq where almost everyone had a gun, it didn't mean shit.  Both Saddam and later the US had guns.. and tanks.. and chemical weapons and helicopters and snipers who can kill you before you even know they are there.

And ironically even being better armed doesnt' save you.  Despite being outgunned, the Iraqis did manage to still kill quite a few Americans. (though admittedly most of that seems to have been with bombs)

That's just situational.. it's exceedingly rare if you think about it.

Defense doesn't mean "makes a shield"

what does my hand dandy dictionary say?  This definitionseems the most  relevant:

the action of defending from or resisting attack : they relied on missiles for the country's defense | she came to the defense of the eccentric professor.....a means of protecting something from attack

Well guns don't stop you from being attacked. They dont' give you resistance to bullets. At most they allow you to shoot back which is a kind of defense (I said so earlier) BUT that defense is also predicated on a number of factors, few of which can be relied upon. So it's a very shaky defense that can also become a liability.

Just as I explained earlier.

Btw, felt I should add; Mythbusters has shown that guns can block bullets and bullets can block bullets. It may be highly unlikely one will, but they can

How does that not just reinforce what I've been saying al this time?

My position is that gun control laws can work to reduce gun deaths.

I have no qualms with that and agree,

Awesome!  then you should start by no longer making blanket statements about how gun controls can't curb gun crime.

And while you are at it, get people to stop posting those stupid fallacious graphics on face book.

You know, the thing that made me so made to begin with?  the thing that material defender was responding too that I responded too that started your response to me?

Because here's my point once again but reworded...

People aren't making these arguments to say we need better gun laws. they use them to say we should have fewer/weaker gun laws.

And these arguments aren't just falllacious.  They are deeply deeply stupid. 

This isn't to say one can't make a valid argument against any particular gun law.  But few are making valid arguments.

If the people who argue against gun laws want to convince me they are responsible enough to have the ability to snuff out a human life with ease, they can start by not sounding like idiots who will accept any dumb argument as long as it reinforces what they want to believe.

Otherwise not a sign of responsibility. That's a sign that one is iresposnsible but the consequences simply haven't caught up to them yet.

And with guns, the "consequences" are generally a corpse.

[rookie]

So Booley, is it guns you don't like? Or is it you don't like people who like guns? Really, I'm having a hard time getting a read on that.

[Cataclysm]

He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.

[booley]

@Balooy since I'm not bothering quoting that giant text block and I'm not playing the chop up the quote game. Cause that annoys me.

Well it helps me keep my argument organized so you know exactly what I am responding too. So I'll keep doing it.

And it's booley. there is no a.

I'm not saying that things can't work.

but you did..

Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.

and then contradicted yourself.

All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime

And that was my point there.

IF you didn't mean to say that (but you did) you were making a bad argument. and I could just chalk it up to everybody flubs except then dasfuchs did the same thing. and I have seen others do it.

I'm just saying don't be surprised if a solution that worked with one culture/geography/religion is not always a one size fits all.

since I never claimed that what worked in one country would automatically work here, I would say I am unlikely to be surprised. Nor is this relevant. It is however a bit of a straw man.
The point was gun laws can work.

There's not a fallacy is being cautious.

not when one says ..

jumping around the world and comparing countries with different political systems, cultures, backgrounds, diversity and a host of other factors isn't going to say much.

it's never explained why that particular example should be discounted. It's just asserted that it is since it's not from here.

Something might work, it might not work. Assumptions one way or the other is dumb.

Too bad those reasons weren't detailed or else it might not have been a genetic fallacy.  But that didnt' happen when the fallacy occurred.

and since I didnt' make the assumption you seem to ascribe to me.. again straw man.

do you see what I keep doing here?  Because I really want you to get what I am saying...

the way you were talking I could only come to the assumption you were pushing for gun bans or extreme gun control.

Really? Where? What exactly did I say that led you that conclusion?

I wont' even mind if you break your own rule and post in a block quote so I can know exactly what I said that made you think I thought something I didn't.

Also, define extreme. That's a subjective qualifier.  Some think a back ground check and waiting period is "extreme". Some view bans on civilian roc ket launchers as extreme. So by your definition maybe I am extreme.  But I have no way of knowing if your definition of extremism isn't extreme itself.

Just you seem to be missing some of what I'm saying.

I think you have been missing what I was saying
So let me repeat it again.. from the very first post of mine that you responded too...

....
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.

I'm saying the historical precedence for arms control is controlling your population.

and you provided no reason to believe that other then your assertion.

I, meanwhile, provided examples where the opposite occurred.  The Tony Blair's UK had stricter gun laws then Saddam's Iraq.  But it was Saddam's Iraq that was a police state.
And other countries have regulations on guns.  IS Canada not a free country?

So in a  debate, who do you think would have a stronger argument? The guy who just says something is true or the guy who provides examples of what he says?

It never really works since if there's a demand, the supply will meet it. The people who instituted a drug ban seem to forget that. I'm telling you the strongest reason why I tend to oppose gun bans and the like.

since I never said bans were the only possible gun control, that's meaningless.

Also the statistics dont' quite support you as much as you assume..

A paper forthcoming in the American Law and Economics Review finds the buyback cut firearm suicides 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year.
A former Australian Treasury economist, Christine Neill, now with Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University, says she found the result so surprising she tried to redo her calculations in the expectation the effect would be smaller.
''I fully expected to find no effect at all,'' she told The Age from Waterloo, Ontario. ''That we found such a big effect and that it meshed with a range of other data was just shocking, completely unexpected.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/guns-buyback-saved-lives-20100829-13xmn.html#ixzz2F3adlXQk

Also, you provide no link that I can see though I am sure you got it from some where. You might have just forgotten.

But intentionally or not, you did an appeal to anonymous authority.

Who is this person you are quoting and why should I believe them over the other studies I can verify that say differently?  How do I know they aren't full of shit?
Yes it says it came from the DC examiner, but I cant' find the original source where the examiner said this. All I can find are right wing blogs blurting it. and why should I be the one looking for YOUR corroboration?
I've already caught quite a few times when people argued against gun control using bogus stats or cherry picking or quote mining.  So I'm going to be cynical.

Especially when the blogs seem to all be like this one...

http://thebrennerbrief.com/2012/12/03/gun-control-does-it-work-to-reduce-crime/

where the lady, to make her case, for one links to a conservative think tank without telling anyone it's a conservative think tank (leading one to assume they are unbiased" and then crime stats that no only aren't supported by the link she gave but also isnt' what  the issue is.

She goes on talking about violent crime...  but somehow misses GUN crime.  But a country can have more violent crime and less gun crime.  The aforementioned UK for example.  And there are a number of reasons for this that have nothing o do with gun laws. The old correlation does not equal causation.

and then I look at a more credible source and suddenly those statistics don't  seem so damning..

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And I was never saying that there aren't murders by angry white people. I had my focus in a certain aspect, so there's that.

an aspect which isnt' really that relevant in the larger picture.  And you didnt' just say it was an aspect. You said it was the main source.

Most gun deaths occur because of suicide or arguments among people who knew each other.  Poverty or race could be a factor but it's not the most important factor. It certainly isn't the prime or "main" source of that.

In fact some studies indicate the problem could be cultural... a tendency to escalate disagreements to violence.  and that has more to do with gun deaths then poverty or race.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/analysis-the-geography-of-gun-violence-20120720

We have to go where the facts lead us, not make lead the facts.

Sorry if I got tangential in my argument, it's a super bad problem of mine. I don't intend to, but it happens.

My problem isn't tangents.  I have no problem if you make tangents. I make them out the wazoo.

My problem is bad arguments.

Go back to that video I put up.

IF so many people are making these bad arguments and they own guns, what does that say about them?

[booley]

So Booley, is it guns you don't like? Or is it you don't like people who like guns? Really, I'm having a hard time getting a read on that.

maybe because I havent' really been discussing that...

He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.

Yeah I will admit that's important to me.

[Askold]

First of all, Booley you are very sounding very hostile. Try to calm down.

Because here's my point once again but reworded...

People aren't making these arguments to say we need better gun laws. they use them to say we should have fewer/weaker gun laws.

And these arguments aren't just falllacious.  They are deeply deeply stupid. 

This isn't to say one can't make a valid argument against any particular gun law.  But few are making valid arguments.

If the people who argue against gun laws want to convince me they are responsible enough to have the ability to snuff out a human life with ease, they can start by not sounding like idiots who will accept any dumb argument as long as it reinforces what they want to believe.

Otherwise not a sign of responsibility. That's a sign that one is iresposnsible but the consequences simply haven't caught up to them yet.

And with guns, the "consequences" are generally a corpse.

Second: I want better gun laws. If the laws have to be strick to "work" then that is ok to me but I still want that law abiding people would have the ability to legally own guns. This is not a contradiction. We can have background checks for potential gun owners. We can have laws where every gun owner and gun has to be registered. We can even have laws that mandate some sort of training for potential gun owners (much like driving schools) with the added benefit that an organised training means that the gun owner comes to contact with people who might notice some warning signs. (And let's face it. The safety teacher who would meet the trainees several times has much better chance of seeing any warning signs than the doctor who does a five minute psychological review to a person he has never met. Like the current Finnish law demands.)

None of those laws would completely prevent people from owning guns, even if those guns would be evil, black, assault rifles.

If the people who argue against gun laws want to convince me they are responsible enough to have the ability to snuff out a human life with ease, they can start by not sounding like idiots who will accept any dumb argument as long as it reinforces what they want to believe.

Otherwise not a sign of responsibility. That's a sign that one is iresposnsible but the consequences simply haven't caught up to them yet.

And how would we prove that? I haven't killed anyone yet. And I say that I have not, nor will I ever, go on a mad killing spree.

But that is just me saying it. And as far as I know, you don't know me so this is just a stranger claiming this.

The only way to prove it is the check back after I have died did I ever go on a killing spree. But that is the way it is with everyone.

I know that in Finland gun owners are statistically less likely to be (or to have been) convicted of crimes, especially violent crimes and murders. Which is a good thing but not that suprising since it's not like anyone would be eager to give a gun license to a person who has a history of violence.

He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.

That is a straw man.

[DasFuchs]

He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.

Which I don't think anyone does. In his mess to communicate this he just pisses everyone else off on the opposing side while making messes of the thread.
From what I've seen of him before he'll never admit to level ground or being wrong, he'll just get ridiculously stupid into the retorts. case in point how he dances around the "guns can't be tools of defense" stuff. It all just makes me want to spend less effort to even respond to him

By the way, I saw this coming;
"How does that not just reinforce what I've been saying al this time?"

It doesn't, unlikely isn't the same as don't or can't. You made an absolutest statement and then seem to be finding a way to dodge that you did after chewing others out about it whether meant or not.

[booley]

Ok if I sound "hostile" maybe it's frustration at comments like this...

....
None of those laws would completely prevent people from owning guns, even if those guns would be evil, black, assault rifles.

How many times have I said the point of any law is to reduce the chances of a crime and provide a means to deal with it when it does occur?

Not to have absolute success at stopping a crime?

Frankly I lost count.  And it seems no one else here was counting at all.  Otherwise so many wouldn't keep arguing against this thing I never said.

How many times does it need to be said that's a straw man before you guys begin to consider maybe you are making a straw man?

IF you aren't debating what I actually said... who are you responding too?

And you don't even provide any reason why a gun law couldn't be made to reduce the odds of someone getting an assualt rifle.

You, like so many others, just assert it.  What reason should I respect that?

Apparently you think this is a fact and as apparent as the sun rising in the east.

But maybe it's not as as "apparent" as you think.  And maybe it's not even true.

And that's my immediate problem.

You arent' arguing against what I wrote.

You are arguing with some made up position you assigned to me. And I know the reason you are doing it is that is easier for you to argue against.

for instance....

And how would we prove that? I haven't killed anyone yet. And I say that I have not, nor will I ever, go on a mad killing spree.

First, trying to directly refute what I said when you can't even be sure I was directing an it at you (and I never talked to you before now) is kind of problematic.  How did you know I put in that group even though we hadn't talked and I had no idea what kind of arguments you would make before now?

And when I say a lot of people are making bad arguments and bad logic about guns that that worry me and YOU think I am talking specifically at YOU, that's also indicative.

I put the dunning kruger video up for a reason. 
Not going to go into the attitudes of other countries but in this country, after every shooting that makes the national news (not all do.. we had 2 after connecticut that have yet to make past local news) the same tired arguments spring forth like zombies in a movie.  And they generally boil down too:

Guns have nothing to do with gun violence
Guns stop gun violence
There is no policy framework, no law that can ever curb gun violence (only MORE GUNS)
And guns are no more deadly then any house hold object.

Over and over we get flooded by these memes and apparently many americans accept them unconditionally.

So much so that they can say, with out a hint to cognitive dissonance or irony, that Gun laws can never stop gun violence and that sometimes gun laws work (or even that they aren't opposed to gun laws)

They can't have it both ways.  We cant' say gun laws don't work and sometimes they do.  We can't say we don't oppose gun laws and then downplay  when they do work
(I mean, if one doesn't think gun laws can ever stop gun crimes, then why not oppose them?)

But as in the case of Dunning Kruger, they can't see it because they take accept some or all of these memes uncritically.  It's not even some kind of stupid issue.  I have seen many of these people have made good arguments elsewhere.  They are capable of it.  Until this specific issue.


Not every gun law works. Some have unintended consequences, some are undone by outside factors, some need reform, some have loop holes, some lack enforcement.

But what would make a gun law work is a conversation we can never have seriously in this country because too many are hung up the above memes.  They take it on faith and then as in any case of GIGO, fail to understand the problem because they built that understanding on false premises.

They may say they are responsible. I have no doubt they truly feel they are.  But if the premise they base that belief is false, then they might not be.

No that doesnt' mean anyone with a gun is a spree killer in waiting. Or going to shoot his kid for coming in through a window by accident. or will get mad enough at someone to grab the ultimate argument winner.

But I have no way of knowing that for sure until after somebody gets shot.

So what can you do?  Acknowledge you have a deadly weapon that makes taking human life very easy.  That others have this same power.  That having a gun is no safeguard against them using it against you.  That when a shooting occurs, talk  from the gun lobby about "gun rights" sounds less like freedom and more about protecting one's toys to many.

ANd most importantly, if you have done these things,  stop thinking words meant generally are somehow being directed specifically at you.   Comments pointing out the bad actions of others don't  necessarily include you.  Policies meant to curb the actions of the irresponsible or dangerous aren't some punishment against you just because people aren't psychic and can't tell who's ok to have a gun and who just thinks they are.

And maybe be careful about assuming stuff.

[booley]

BTW, I realized in my last post I was unintentionally feeding the prejudices of those arguing against me that somehow I was accusing them of being murders.

I wasn't.

Go back to my first post about this..

While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.

In other words, while many may say they aren't opposed to gun control per se, as long as they accept the bad arguments put forth by those against gun control laws, they help shit down debate about how we could curb gun violence.   Whether they would recognize what a good gun law would look and wouldn't dismiss it out of hand becomes questionable.

Every time I see an argument like this being pushed:



it leads me to believe that a lot of people who argue against gun control (in general or in particular) may not understand  the issue to know if what they are saying makes sense. But worse then that, they think they understand because they have accepted the false premises behind the bad arguments.

Which might also explain, for instance, why so many Americans oppose Gun control:



and yet at the same time support gun control laws:



Every time I have had this debate, I have had to spend so much my energy just countering the long string of myths and assumptions the gun lobby uses to shit down debate (which people knowingly or unknowingly spread) that any rational discussion about what could be done to stop gun violence gets lost.

And more people keep dying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/