About Guns

[Traditional_Ale]

This was a post by a member of www.ranger-forums.com, another site I hang out at. I thought it was very well written and was wondering what some of the members of CP think of it. It was written in response to an American Liberal stance on gun control:

It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any object, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime. It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones. And how are all of these objects to be outlawed, and if outlawed, how is the prohibition to be enforced? Instead of pursuing innocent people carrying or possessing various objects, then, the law should be concerned with combatting and apprehending real criminals.

There is, moreover, another consideration which reinforces our conclusion. If guns are restricted or outlawed, there is no reason to expect that determined criminals are going to pay much attention to the law. The criminals, then, will always be able to purchase and carry guns; it will only be their innocent victims who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism that imposes laws against guns and other weapons. Just as drugs, gambling, and pornography should be made legal, so too should guns and any other objects that might serve as weapons of self-defense.

What of historical experience? Have handgun bans really greatly lowered the degree of violence in society, as liberals claim? The evidence is precisely to the contrary. A massive study done at the University of Wisconsin concluded unequivocally in the fall of 1975 that “gun control laws have no individual or collective effect in reducing the rate of violent crime.” The Wisconsin study, for example, tested the theory that ordinarily peaceful people will be irresistibly tempted to shoot their guns if available when tempers are being frayed. The study found no correlation whatever between rates of handgun ownership and rates of homicide when compared, state by state. Moreover, this finding is reinforced by a 1976 Harvard study of a Massachusetts law providing a mandatory minimum year in prison for anyone found possessing a handgun without a government permit. It turns out that, during the year 1975, this 1974 law did indeed considerably reduce the carrying of firearms and the number of assaults with firearms. But, lo and behold! the Harvard researchers found to their surprise that there was no corresponding reduction in any type of violence. That is,

As previous criminological studies have suggested,
deprived of a handgun, a momentarily enraged citizen will
resort to the far more deadly long gun. Deprived of all
firearms, he will prove almost as deadly with knives, hammers,
etc.

Clearly, if reducing handgun ownership does not reduce homicide or other violence, a handgun ban is just one more diversion of police resources from real crime to victimless crime.

moreover, a society where peaceful citizens are armed is far more likely to be one where Good Samaritans who voluntarily go to the aid of victims of crime will flourish. But take away people’s guns, and the public—disastrously for the victims—will tend to leave the matter to the police. Before New York State outlawed handguns, Good Samaritan instances were far more widespread than now. And, in a recent survey of Good Samaritan cases no less than 81 percent of the Samaritans were owners of guns. If we wish to encourage a society where citizens come to the aid of neighbors in distress, we must not strip them of the actual power to do something about crime. Surely, it is the height of absurdity to disarm the peaceful public and then, as is quite common, to denounce them for “apathy” for failing to rush to the rescue of victims of criminal assault.

[CaptainCrunch]

Human beings are exceptional killers and incredibly ingenious. If they don't have guns to kill, they'll find something else to kill with.

Take the Baseball Bat with a nail in it, simple, can be made in 5 minutes, and it has a nearly 100% fatality rate.

[Daradon]

Guns just make it too easy to kill, and they often end up in the wrong hands. Either in kids hands, or criminals hands.

A person may resort to a knife, and yeah, they'll probably find a single target they want. But you wont get mall shootings, club shootings, school shootings, freeway shootings, etc. You won't have multiple deaths (or at least at the same level a shooter can affect mayham)

Regarding the post above, the last argument about Good Samaritan types being armed is just absurd. There's no evidence that people being armed will make them more likely to act or being unarmed makes a person less likely to act. Not only is there no evidence, the argument doesn't make a lot of logical sense either.

[RougeUnderoos]

I'd much rather some loon show up at the school or post office with a baseball bat than a handgun.

Places like Georgia and Texas have lax gun laws compared to Canada. How's that working out?

[Daradon]

As well, if a gun isn't the weapon of choice, it all but eliminates a third party getting caught in the crossfire or mayham.

As for his stats on handgun bans, well I don't know too much about those specific studies, but the studies were still done in the states where there is still easy access to guns. A ban that lasts a few years or is only in a few states is not going to make a difference anyway. You just go across state lines.

You look at first world countries that have bans or stricter rules, and the homicide rate is proportionally lower. The accidental death rate is also lower. I'm not sure how one can argue with that.

Yeah it kinda sucks for a large amount of well meaning people to lose a right because some people can't be responsible, but in this case, it might be worth it. There is no NEED for a handgun. Sure some people might like them, but they don't NEED them.

[Rubber Ducky]

This is the quote that absolutely separates me from the original writer -

"It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones."

Of course humans can kill each other with knives, clubs, hatpins or stones. But those all have other purposes.

In my opinion, handguns have no other purpose but to kill people. Rifles and shotguns can be used for other purposes - for example, hunting or sports - but what else is a handgun used for?

I'm very thankful for our strict gun-control laws.

[Weiser Wonder]

It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any object, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime. It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones. And how are all of these objects to be outlawed, and if outlawed, how is the prohibition to be enforced? Instead of pursuing innocent people carrying or possessing various objects, then, the law should be concerned with combatting and apprehending real criminals.

Guns have one use. To kill. All those other things have uses beyond being used as a weapon. So it makes much more sense to limit guns and not the other objects.

The Good Samaritan argument is not thought through as Daradon already pointed out. I understand the ideal world the author has set up in his brain wear a women being mugged is immediately saved by five men with handguns. However it wouldn't work that way. A person try intercede in a situation like that is more likely to cause the shooting of an innocent than anything. It is just so difficult to act correctly and rationally in situations like that. That is why people are trained to be experts in handling such situations. The experts (the police) should have guns. Not random people on the street.

[Dan02]

They can try to sell it to me but i ain't buying that guns don't promote violence. Seriously a study done 32 years ago? Do they have anything more recent to try and sway my opinion?

My beef is all of a sudden these wannabe gangsters get their hands on a gun and suddenly they're tough.

[Ice]

Restricting the purchase of guns doesn't keep them away from criminals. They aren't allowed to purchase them legally anyway, yet they still have them.

Guns aren't only for killing people. I had my gun for about 10 years and never killed anyone with it. It was really fun going to the shooting range with some police officer friends and shooting there. I understand its not for everyone, but not all gun owners are waiting to kill someone. Some people feel their gun is for self defense. Mine wasn't, it was pointless to defend myself in the event of an intruder seeing as the gun was locked up in one gun locker and the ammo in another. It was just for fun/sport.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Ice

Restricting the purchase of guns doesn't keep them away from criminals. They aren't allowed to purchase them legally anyway, yet they still have them.

nope, it won't take them away, but it will definately make them harder to get and decrease the number of them.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Ice

Restricting the purchase of guns doesn't keep them away from criminals. They aren't allowed to purchase them legally anyway, yet they still have them.

Guns aren't only for killing people. I had my gun for about 10 years and never killed anyone with it. It was really fun going to the shooting range with some police officer friends and shooting there. I understand its not for everyone, but not all gun owners are waiting to kill someone. Some people feel their gun is for self defense. Mine wasn't, it was pointless to defend myself in the event of an intruder seeing as the gun was locked up in one gun locker and the ammo in another. It was just for fun/sport.

It's only practical mechanism is to kill someone or something. It can be used at shooting range but that's not a practical mechanism.

[habernac]

I don't hunt, I have no use for them. Hand guns should be kept at shooting ranges or whatever, there's no reason for any "civilian" to have one. Rifles, etc, I don't have a problem with.

Edit to add that assault rifles, etc have no reason to be in non military hands, either.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Ice

Restricting the purchase of guns doesn't keep them away from criminals. They aren't allowed to purchase them legally anyway, yet they still have them.

Guns aren't only for killing people. I had my gun for about 10 years and never killed anyone with it. It was really fun going to the shooting range with some police officer friends and shooting there. I understand its not for everyone, but not all gun owners are waiting to kill someone. Some people feel their gun is for self defense. Mine wasn't, it was pointless to defend myself in the event of an intruder seeing as the gun was locked up in one gun locker and the ammo in another. It was just for fun/sport.

See this is what people who like guns say, and I get it the argument, but I don't agree with it.

The guns PRIMARY use, is to kill. Guns weren't invented to shoot targets. No one said, 'hey, lets take lethal force and shoot paper and bottles with it' Sure, that's what some people use them for now, but for someone to argue that a gun isn't meant for, or primarily used for killing (or intimidation/violence) well, they are just fooling themselves.

EDIT: I've been to a shooting range before, used a few different handguns, and enjoyed myself. But I'd have no problem if they were banned tomorrow. I don't need to go shoot paper.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I have a hard time coming up with a solid argument against stricter hand gun controls or even a ban.

Assault weapons should be illegal, IMO. Even more concrete on that one than hand guns.

Ownership of rifles and shotguns needs to be regulated and protected.

[Rubber Ducky]

See, this is the kind of idiocy we see when every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to carry a handgun.

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl.../NEWS/81227003

Too bad that Mr Cialella wasn't carrying a hatpin instead of a gun. Probably wouldn't have ended up shooting somebody.

[Ice]

I would be personally unaffected by a gun ban as well. I sold mine a couple of years ago because I never had time to go shooting anymore. I don't disagree that a gun in the wrong hands is very dangerous and potentially deadly. So is alcohol when you consider how many people drink and drive and essentially make their car a deadly weapon. I've found very few supporters of a gun ban feel the same way about banning alcohol. (Not that I support that, I'm just pointing out there are plenty of irresponsible people out there who kill innocent people without guns)

Edit: I totally agree about assault weapons. Even as a gun owner I see no need for those to be available to anyone except military and police.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by fotze

guns guns guns!

Where? All I see is the fabulous Kurtwood Smith!

[Montana Moe]

Two questions for anyone that is game:

1. Could someone define what exactly they consider an assault weapon to be?

2. What is the role of law enforcement in respect to violent crimes as they are being committed?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Assault weapon by my definition has any of the following qualities:

1. fully automatic
2. designed for military applications (with the excpetion of long range sniper rifles)
3. the ability to fire a certain # of rounds per second ( I won't try to set that number).

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Dan02

They can try to sell it to me but i ain't buying that guns don't promote violence. Seriously a study done 32 years ago? Do they have anything more recent to try and sway my opinion?

My beef is all of a sudden these wannabe gangsters get their hands on a gun and suddenly they're tough.

They lost me when they automatically assumed that "liberals" are against guns, and "conservatives" are for guns.

That kind of simple mindedness does nothing to support their argument. Same kind of attitude that assumes that changing an opinion in the face of a superior argument represents weak mindedness and "flip-flopping".

Handguns are concealed weapons. Concealed weapons should be regulated if not outright banned. Keeping a shotgun in the house for self defense makes sense, but carrying a loaded handgun around on your person and expecting everyone else to be doing the same... this just doesn't resonate with a lot of logic.