Inevitable gun control argument thread....

[IglooDame]

Smidlee gets the award for bringing up 9-11 in the most awkward place this week Is there a similar law to Godwin's that relates to 9-11? If not, I humbly suggest we call it "Che's Law"

Back on topic, I really dislike this argument, because it seems to negte the fact that there is a gradient of danger involved with lethality of weapons. Sure, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, but let me remind you that nealry any able bodied person can learn self-defense techniques to disarm someone with a knife, not excluding a popular one I like to call 'running'. I think firearms are pretty far removed from knives in the way that there are very few defenses or escapes from them, not to mention the higher potential for accidents.

There are plenty of good arguments for gun ownership, but I just don't buy this one.

This actually cuts directly to one of my pet peeves about gun vs knife comparisons. Maybe it only comes up more here because by and large folks in CFC are teen-to-30something males (and to your credit, you do reference "any able bodied person" at least) but there are a lot of people out there (including my wife) for whom a decently athletic male attacker is going to be too much for them, whether defending themselves with their arms or their feet. An athletic male attacker with a knife tips the scales even further - and at that point I too would be pretty vulnerable, martial arts training or not.

Perhaps this is why the UK is cracking down on the carrying of knives.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Firearms were much less dangerous at the time of the writing of the Constitution but it was still possible to go to a public place and shoot a few people with them. I also bet the average person was a much better shot back then.


One of the reasons why the right to bear arms was specifically included in the bill of rights is because firearms are the first thing a government that wishes to control its population gets rid of. And the government does want to control us even if it is just for our 'protection'. The government is not supposed to control the people, the people are supposed to control the government.

 

[Little Raven]

This actually cuts directly to one of my pet peeves about gun vs knife comparisons. Maybe it only comes up more here because by and large folks in CFC are teen-to-30something males (and to your credit, you do reference "any able bodied person" at least) but there are a lot of people out there (including my wife) for whom a decently athletic male attacker is going to be too much for them, whether defending themselves with their arms or their feet. An athletic male attacker with a knife tips the scales even further - and at that point I too would be pretty vulnerable, martial arts training or not.

Sure, but assume that you, I and Che are in classroom when your knife-wielding football player attacks. Even if none of us is exactly Jackie Chan, we're going to overcome Psycho McChoppy with sheer body mass. Even if one (or more) of us gets stabbed, he's almost certainly going to end up on the ground long enough for even more people to arrive...at which point it doesn't how mean he is with a blade, he's not going to win.

Play that same situation with a handgun, and odds shift dramatically back in McChoppy's favor. When it comes to mass murder, guns are effective in a way that knives simply aren't.

 

[warpus]

As evidenced at Virgina Tech, Columbine and elsewhere -- the state's response to threats to your life and well being take time. If you already don't have a right to bear arms I can only hope that you have that time.

Are you suggesting that students should be bringing concealed weapons to class?

Yeahhhh, that is an excellent idea..

 

[Che Guava]

This actually cuts directly to one of my pet peeves about gun vs knife comparisons. Maybe it only comes up more here because by and large folks in CFC are teen-to-30something males (and to your credit, you do reference "any able bodied person" at least) but there are a lot of people out there (including my wife) for whom a decently athletic male attacker is going to be too much for them, whether defending themselves with their arms or their feet. An athletic male attacker with a knife tips the scales even further - and at that point I too would be pretty vulnerable, martial arts training or not.

Perhaps this is why the UK is cracking down on the carrying of knives.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to downplay the serious damage that can be done with a knife, nor the people that are more at risk simply owning to thier size/stature.

But having said that, i think Raven echos my thoughts pretty well: with only knives availble, you are restricting the attackers and the victims to opposite ends of the scale. Now of course, i don't want to simply say tough titties to the more vulnerable people in our society, but given that an athletic male can do pretty much whatever he likes with a much weaker opponent, knife or not, I think that comes down more to an issue of security rather than what weapons are availible.

My main concern is that a gun can turn virtually anyone into a potential serial killer, wheras someone with a knife might not get as far. Having said that, It hink I would advocate banning large knives from urban areas as well, since there seems to be little practical use for them there...

 

[IglooDame]

Sure, but assume that you, I and Che are in classroom when your knife-wielding football player attacks. Even if none of us is exactly Jackie Chan, we're going to overcome Psycho McChoppy with sheer body mass. Even if one (or more) of us gets stabbed, he's almost certainly going to end up on the ground long enough for even more people to arrive...at which point it doesn't how mean he is with a blade, he's not going to win.

Play that same situation with a handgun, and odds shift dramatically back in McChoppy's favor. When it comes to mass murder, guns are effective in a way that knives simply aren't.

Which is the reason that, given current security measures, I am perfectly fine with guns not being allowed on commercial aircraft. Ironically, it's also the reason I think that civilian carrying of guns is so useful - the odds even out in exactly the way we're talking about here.

But as regards mass murder, I don't see any element that necessitates bannage anyway. How many times per year does a circumstance come up where two, three, four people would see their own sacrifice (and believe me, if I'm taking on a knife-armed person barehanded - even with two buddies - I'm counting it as self-sacrifice) as necessary to save significantly more people?

 

[Atlas14]

My main concern is that a gun can turn virtually anyone into a potential serial killer, wheras someone with a knife might not get as far. Having said that, It hink I would advocate banning large knives from urban areas as well, since there seems to be little practical use for them there...

You have a point there, but couldn't carrying guns also provide everyone with the immediate self-defense they need?

 

[Little Raven]

Ironically, it's also the reason I think that civilian carrying of guns is so useful - the odds even out in exactly the way we're talking about here.

They even out, yes...by drastically increasing the lethality of everyone. Which is fine if you believe that humans are basically good, rational beings that can be trusted with that sort of power.

 

[Che Guava]

You have a point there, but couldn't carrying guns also provide everyone with the immediate self-defense they need?

Yep...if only we had 'defense only' guns...hmmm...rubber bullets...?

To me the argument like that seems akin to saying that if a few feral dogs get loose ina city, we should release many more dogs so that those can take care of the first ones..Only problem is, once you let the dogs out, its hard to tel the feral ones from the originals.

My point is, a society with few to no guns seems more safe to me than one with many extra guns around as security...

Spoiler :

and yes, someone please make the 'who let the dogs out' joke so we can move on

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Yep...if only we had 'defense only' guns...hmmm...rubber bullets...?

To me the argument like that seems akin to saying that if a few feral dogs get loose ina city, we should release many more dogs so that those can take care of the first ones..Only problem is, once you let the dogs out, its hard to tel the feral ones from the originals.

My point is, a society with few to no guns seems more safe to me than one with many extra guns around as security...

Spoiler :

and yes, someone please make the 'who let the dogs out' joke so we can move on

And of course another group of people argue that, since there are a few feral dogs loose in a city, we should ban all dogs.

Who let the dogs out...

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess my logical counter-argument would be that anti-depressants have the potential to cloud you reasonning, making you more likely to commit an irrational act, wheras guns are simply tools who's use depends on the state of min of the individual before purchasing a gun (or using it), like a car for instance.

Holding a gun gives me a rush of power, much like how God must feel, when He's holding a gun.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee gets the award for bringing up 9-11 in the most awkward place this week Is there a similar law to Godwin's that relates to 9-11? If not, I humbly suggest we call it "Che's Law"

I used this as an example of something like a small knife, where there were no guns, eventually turn a huge plane into a building killing many. I could have used the Oklahoma as another example of where no guns were involved. Gun control is a detour of the way problem; people control.
There are more ways to obtain power, including to kill, than just guns.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would support a two-tier license system. The basic license would allow you to carry as today - you couldn't carry in a classroom or a bar and places like that and the background check is similar to what it is today. If you obtained a premium license, which would require a much more extensive background check and evaluation plus proven proficiency, you could carry in the "restricted" zones. That way, a potential killer never knows for sure that a classroom is gun free - there would always be the possibilty that someone with a Premium License is there and armed.

 

[Atlas14]

I would support a two-tier license system. The basic license would allow you to carry as today - you couldn't carry in a classroom or a bar and places like that and the background check is similar to what it is today. If you obtained a premium license, which would require a much more extensive background check and evaluation plus proven proficiency, you could carry in the "restricted" zones. That way, a potential killer never knows for sure that a classroom is gun free - there would always be the possibilty that someone with a Premium License is there and armed.

That actually is a very logical idea. I like it. The premium one would have to have extremely rigid standards and checks, I agree. Perhaps even a written/oral test in addition to a gun proficiency shooting test.

 

[Pokurcz]

Why not require the premium license everywhere and the license with less control on shooting ranges only and perhaps when hunting?

The problem with the notion of owning a gun for "self defense" is that it is based on selfish irrational feelings where people who want a gun imagine themselves in the worst possible scenario, one that is statistically very improbable. This whilst it is much more probable that you accidentally hurt yourself or someone else. Death by firearm is the second largest cause of death by bodily harm in the USA, after motor vehicles. This is not the case in other countries where firearms are more restricted.

In stead of thinking selfishly and irrationally one should think of the grater good of ones society as a whole.

 

[IglooDame]

Why not require the premium license everywhere and the license with less control on shooting ranges only and perhaps when hunting?

The problem with the notion of owning a gun for "self defense" is that it is based on selfish irrational feelings where people who want a gun imagine themselves in the worst possible scenario, one that is statistically very improbable. This whilst it is much more probable that you accidentally hurt yourself or someone else. Death by firearm is the second largest cause of death by bodily harm in the USA, after motor vehicles. This is not the case in other countries where firearms are more restricted.

Sure, but death by accidentally-inflicted bodily harm by firearm is way down the list, below swimming pools. Do yourself a favor and stay away from heights, sharp objects, poisons, and dangerous weather.

In stead of thinking selfishly and irrationally one should think of the grater good of ones society as a whole.

Sure, just as soon as bad drivers voluntarily decide to stay off the road. Statistically I am far likelier to be in an accident caused by them, than they are to be shot by me.

 

[Pokurcz]

Yes but only 40% of Americans own guns whilst practically everyone drives a car. That would mean that if gun ownership was up to 100% the death toll would be approximately the same for motor vehicles and firearms.

"Sure, but death by accidentally-inflicted bodily harm by firearm is way down the list, below swimming pools."

So you concur with: "The problem with the notion of owning a gun for "self defense" is that it is based on selfish irrational feelings where people who want a gun imagine themselves in the worst possible scenario, one that is statistically very improbable."

Well that is what i wanted to hear. I just do not understand how you still can preach that guns are needed for "protection".


Why do you insist on discussing petty details instead of addressing the main issue I try to convey, that less guns causes less people to die from gunshots?

 

[skadistic]

If gun ownership was 100% it would not be the same death rates as cars. Thats just ********. Most people who own guns don't use them everyday or even see them once a week.

 

[Pokurcz]

But the chance of people getting killed by guns would rise approximately twofold due to that more than twice as many people would own guns.

"Most people who own guns don't use them everyday or even see them once a week."

And still aproximately half as many people manage to die from injuries inflicted by firearms as get killed in traffic.

Thats about as ******** as 2+2=4.


Courtesy of NVSS:
"The five leading mechanisms-of-injury death accounted for 81 percent
of all injury deaths and were (in rank order):
Motor vehicle traffic (27.3 percent)
Firearm (18.8 percent)
Poisoning (16.4 percent)
Fall (10.6 percent)
Suffocation (7.9 percent)"

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes but only 40% of Americans own guns whilst practically everyone drives a car. That would mean that if gun ownership was up to 100% the death toll would be approximately the same for motor vehicles and firearms.

First of all, nobody is advocating mandatory gun ownership. Personally, I'm advocating that the most responsible gun owners be able to carry in situations where most of the public cannot. Second, what gun owner shoots more than they drive?