[GundamFan0083]

Are you ladies and gents putting a hex on me or something?
My MSI 870 g45 motherboard died yesterday (no video card detected and card works), so now I'm on my laptop (ick).
I have some time now to post...amazing!

Originally Posted by Ledgem

To put it more succinctly, criminals are not emboldened by a lack of guns, but they're also not cowed by their presence.

I would agree, it also depends on each individual criminal.
Some will flee if challenged with a firearm, others will not.

Because I'm going to have to stop coming to these forums pretty soon, and won't have the time to write long posts, here's a final thought.

WHAT!? NO, that sucks.

As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, there are many ways of staving off the intent of firing a bullet that don't involve gun control. I am open, honest, and am not pushing any agenda other than saving lives and preventing injury, so of course I recognize this. However, even those who are against gun control cannot deny that if you reduce the number of guns, the chances of encountering someone with a gun decreases - and that includes people (whether criminals or not) who have ill intent. Having a gun grants you control over certain situations (such as GundamFan0083 being accosted by two men who were warded off by his handgun), but you're still powerless over others (again, the two instances where we were fired upon).


During our discussion something has become clear to me. I tend to focus more on the "others," those situations where a gun is used offensively and without warning; the situations where having a gun on you doesn't offer any real protection. It seems that GundamFan0083 is focusing more on those situations where having a gun allows you to directly influence a situation by negating a firearm-bearing criminal or assailant. Both situations occur, and both are valid. My take is that reducing the number of guns would reduce both instances.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discourse, and thank everyone who took the time to write up their thoughts for doing so

That's the problem with this entire argument, the proverbial Genie was let out of the bottle over 100 years ago in the US, and there is no way to put it back in.

The ATF is only aware of the firearms that have been purchased since 1968, anything made before that is a complete unknown for the most part because records were not kept (Form 4473 not required).

Reducing the number of firearms is just not practical nor realistic at this point in US history.
Gun owners will (for the most part) not turn in their weapons willingly, and any attempt at confication will lead to a blood bath that nobody wants but many are willing to fight.

Because of the level of resistence that will happen in any attempt to reduce access to firearms, we must take into account if such a reduction in firearms will actually have any meaningful effect on the incidences where a firearm is ued in a crime and/or assault (since that is the crux of what we are all discussing here).

A rather controversial study was done on this subject by Don B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

*Don B. Kates (Ll.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer
associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco.

**Gary Mauser (Ph.D., U. California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and
university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.

Their conclusion was as follows:

This article has reviewed a goodly amount of evidence from a wide variety of
international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil, at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the "more guns = more death/fewer guns = less death mantra, especially since they propose public policy ought to be based on that mantra.
To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations which imposed stringent gun controls achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those things are precisely what is not demonstrated when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago University of Washington public health professor Brandon
Centerwall undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the U.S. and Canada to determine whether Canada's much more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research
with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources.

When studied properly, and with all the available evidence, the conclusion to this sitution is clear.
Gun control is a failure, that's why I keep repeating it like a broken record.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

*Snipped*

Removed a lot of this post to focus on the issue of gun control, and not our snarky fun, so as to keep us out of trouble.

I'll attempt to keep the tone of my post as professional as possible.

Let me try and explain this one to you. Crime is crime, and it occurs regardless of what weapons are available. Even if people had nothing but their fists, there would be crime. Agree? In some crimes it's simply a matter of property being stolen; in other crimes, people get hurt. Put a powerful weapon into people's hands, and what do you think will happen when those crimes take place? The magnitude of damage inflicted is increased. The ease with which a life can be taken is increased. This is pure logic.

Define a powerful weapon.
As a former Thermo-Nuclear Weapons Specialist of the USAF, a powerful weapon to me is a MIRV or an ALCM, or a B83 (I hated working on that damn bomb, most were older than me).

A grenade launcher is a firecracker compared to that, and a firearm is a spit-ball.
Also, the lethality of a firearm varies by type and skill of the user, as I've demonstrated throughout this entire thread.
A level action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter is more deadly than a semi-auto rifle in the hands of an incompetent one.
Whereas a shotgun is the most deadly in CQB irregardless of skill level.
This is why the reduction of say "military-style" rifles with high capacity magazines does nothing to reduce crime...at all.
The magnitude of a melee weapon such as a firearm or blade is determined by the skill of the person using it, not the weapon itself.
Take for example the latest shooting in Trenton NJ. That ex-marine used a civilian AK-47 look-a-like. He fired 16 rounds in a crowded supermarket and killed 2 people.
Now take the latest mass killing by knife in Britain, six people were killed in an apartment building, two of them children.
Which was more deadly, the knife or the gun?
Obviously the knife.
The Colorado theater shooting is also a good example.
Which was more deadly, the AR-15 or the Remington 870 shotgun?
Obviously the shotgun.
So we see that magnitude of lethality does not depend on the weapon used when dealing with small arms. It has to do will the person committing the crime: how well they planned their attack, their skill with the weapon of choice, and the place chosen for their deed.
Prevention of these types of attacks requires the public to become more diligent and responsible for their own safety.

Your argument against it is that allowing for force to be equalized is a method to guard against that. I have not argued that it isn't (although I take issue with the unrealistic manner with which you claim it protects you). However, the other argument is that we can guard against it by keeping these weapons out of people's hands. Now don't get too excited: this isn't stretching to say that firearms should be entirely banned from society. What it is saying is that if we reduce their numbers, the chances of their being used in crimes (but not the number of crimes) will decrease. This is also pure logic.

It's not logical when the evidence doesn't support it and it's practicality is basically zero.
It's magical thinking to believe that guns will evaporate just by banning most of them. The sheer magnitude of force that would be required to reduce the number of firearms in the US doesn't justify the cost in both lives and materiale to execute such an operation.
Starting a civil war in the name of public safety is illogial.

Hold on a second...And now you're saying that you're not the one worried about somebody jumping out and gunning you down? And somehow you're implying that I am afraid and insecure, even though I head out each day without a gun and without ever thinking that I'll be a victim?

A bit of paranoia is good and healthy, and I'm not making fun of you for it, but let's call it for what it is, OK?

Don't confuse paranoia with personal responsibility.
Choosing to take responsibility for your own personal safety by owning a firearm, learning how to use it correctly (via the Civilian Marksmanship Program or the like), and being aware of your surroundings is a very positive step in the right direction for not only the individual but also for society as a whole.

Um, dude? America is a country. Do you know what a country is? It's a society made up of people who live together to make life easier (or even possible). That I am a collectivist just means that I care about the people around me and am occasionally willing to put their needs above my own "

That's cooperativism (which is a good thing) not collectivism (which is basically a statist).

Also, I'm a classical Liberal, that means I understand the balance between individualism and cooperativism.

Nice distractor. Two points:

1) The abortion argument is totally separate from this, and hinges on your personal belief as to when life begins. No human can truly say when life begins, but many arrogant fools like to proclaim a certain time and then act as if their view is the ultimate truth. I clearly do not view life as beginning at the same time as you do, therefore I do not recognize your claim about "lives being terminated."

I disagree.
The abortion argument is only partially removed from this one.
The reason for this is due to the fact that life is ended in both situations.
Whether by gun or abortion, a life comes to an end. I believe we can recognize that, yes?
Therefore, if a position is taken that life can be ended under specific conditions, we must recognize that killing is distinct from murder.
What is the difference?

Killing is ending a life in a justifiable manner for the purpose of protection, mercy, or similar condition.
Abortion falls into this realm of thought IMHO, as does killing for self defense, the death penalty, warfare, killing animals for food, or the like.

Murder on the other hand is killing with intent to profit or gain off the death for entirely selfish purposes.
As when a spouse hires a hit-man/woman to kill their husband/wife for the insurance money. Or a rapist kills his/her victim to keep from being caught. Or a madman enters a theater to mow down as many people as possible to make himself feel powerful. Or a national leader chooses to wipe out a whole race/ethnic group because they look different or aren't of the correct political persuation.

2) You've tried these types of distractors before, such as bringing up deaths related to automobile accidents. I know you're not stupid, so why are you acting like we can only focus on one thing at a time?....A preventable death due to a gun is just as tragic as a preventable death due to some other cause, and I think we can all agree that we should always strive to eliminate those deaths as much as we possibly can.

When speaking of accidents, we must take into account all forms of accidents, not cherry pick one or another.

Nope, it's about reducing to avoid preventable deaths. Should we ban cars? No, but we can set lower speed limits in areas with high incidences of accidents. Should we ban fatty foods? No, but we can encourage businesses to avoid using them, and we can encourage people to reduce their intake. Ban unprotected sex? No, but we can try to reduce its occurrence by teaching people about protection.

Ban guns? No, but we can reduce their numbers, and in doing so we might be able to knock out some of those preventable deaths that are related to them.

Automobile accidents far out weight incidents with firearms, as do poisonings, falls, and many others.
Attempts to reduce accidental deaths from all causes usually hinges on education and again personal responsibilty: don't drive drunk or drive fast; don't let your children have access to poison or guns, be careful when climbing icy stairs or when cleaning your weapon, etc, et nausium.

Your example of the speed limit is invalid since the state has a monetary motive to impose such a limit in the form of revenue generation via speed traps and other schemes. It can be argued that safety is a secondary not a primary motivator for such speed restrictions.

If we were to apply the same types of restrictions on cars that are applied to guns (magazine bans, cosmetic bans, etc), you would NOT BE ABLE to drive above 55 mph because your car would be unable to go that fast, no sportscars would exist, no SUVs would exist, and we would be limited to whatever the nanny state imposed upon us.
That is a significant difference than simply asking people to take responsibility for themselves and not drive faster than 55 mph (or whatever the limit may be for a particular street).


Therefore, if we are talking about public safety, we must first determine if the restrictions proposed are more or less effective then simply an educational campaign to get people to take the initiative themselves and prevent these accidents as best they can.

The safety issue really is a separate issue entirely than the gun-control issue, however many gun-control advocates poison the waters of the debate by introducing this issue when it really is not part of the debate.

I didn't reply to a number of your paragraphs because I'm trying to keep my post length down. Rest assured, I didn't leave things out because I had no retort. If you felt that I bypassed a winning argument, let me know and I'll respond specifically to it.

I agree, the debate needed thinning out and distilling down to it's core issues.