Gun Control Fallacies

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell

[Purge_WTF]

 I remember seeing a video clip somewhere of a kid in Chicago being beaten to death with one of those wooden planks they use to make railroad tracks. It goes to show that someone who's hell-bent on hurting people will find a way to do it, weapons or no.

 We should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill (yes, a member of the Constitution Party saying some gun laws are okay), but you really can't predict human behavior otherwise.

[avxo]

I remember seeing a video clip somewhere of a kid in Chicago being beaten to death with one of those wooden planks they use to make railroad tracks. It goes to show that someone who's hell-bent on hurting people will find a way to do it, weapons or no.

While that's certainly true, I think that it's important to keep in mind that the wooden plank can do a lot less damage and it will take a lot longer to do it. This isn't to say that guns shouldn't be available. Just that the "well, you can kill with a butter knife, so no more butter knives and you can scrape your toast on a stick of butter instead!" type of arguments aren't exactly solid.

We should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill (yes, a member of the Constitution Party saying some gun laws are okay), but you really can't predict human behavior otherwise.

I agree. We need to try and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, but the simple fact is that even our best efforts will, sometimes, fail. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try or that the fight is futile per se.

Also, Constitution Party? Really?

[The True Adonis]

While that's certainly true, I think that it's important to keep in mind that the wooden plank can do a lot less damage and it will take a lot longer to do it. This isn't to say that guns shouldn't be available. Just that the "well, you can kill with a butter knife, so no more butter knives and you can scrape your toast on a stick of butter instead!" type of arguments aren't exactly solid.

I agree. We need to try and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, but the simple fact is that even our best efforts will, sometimes, fail. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try or that the fight is futile per se.

Also, Constitution Party? Really?

The most effective way to kill people is probably poison.

[LurkerNoMore]

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would be all but impossible.  A large portion of gun killings are committed by people who have no criminal records and purchased guns legally.

Not to mention most hard criminals simply steal guns.  It would be kind of hard to outlaw theft as we haven't found a way to at this point.

Bottom line is that there is absolutely no gun law that can be thought up and passed that will result in keeping a determined criminal from getting and using one.   That is like saying restricting automobile sales will eliminate drunk driving.

[avxo]

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would be all but impossible.  A large portion of gun killings are committed by people who have no criminal records and purchased guns legally.

Not to mention most hard criminals simply steal guns.  It would be kind of hard to outlaw theft as we haven't found a way to at this point.

Bottom line is that there is absolutely no gun law that can be thought up and passed that will result in keeping a determined criminal from getting and using one.   That is like saying restricting automobile sales will eliminate drunk driving.

I agree with that. I don't think it's possible to completely keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But I don't see this as a reason to say "ahh, fuck it, let's not even bother since there's no point anyways!"

I think sensible laws and regulations that are consistent with the Constitution can help.

Consistent with the Constitution, we must continue preventing some people, like convincted felons and those who are mentally ill from legally owning weapons. At the same time we must work to reduce the number of people who illegally have access to weapons (whether those weapons themselves are legal or illegal). We must clean up the tangle that are present-day gun laws and rationally examine whether the procedures we have in place are sensible and help advance our goals of being safe. Most importantly, we must stop examining every issue from the two extreme positions and seeing everyone who isn't "with us" as being "against us."

[Shockwave]

I agree with that. I don't think it's possible to completely keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But I don't see this as a reason to say "ahh, fuck it, let's not even bother since there's no point anyways!"

I think sensible laws and regulations that are consistent with the Constitution can help.

Consistent with the Constitution, we must continue preventing some people, like convincted felons and those who are mentally ill from legally owning weapons. At the same time we must work to reduce the number of people who illegally have access to weapons (whether those weapons themselves are legal or illegal). We must clean up the tangle that are present-day gun laws and rationally examine whether the procedures we have in place are sensible and help advance our goals of being safe. Most importantly, we must stop examining every issue from the two extreme positions and seeing everyone who isn't "with us" as being "against us."

I can't think of any logical argument against this. I wonder if there are actually anyone that believe that there shouldn't be rational restrictions of ownership of certain weapons.

[Soul Crusher]

I can't think of any logical argument against this. I wonder if there are actually anyone that believe that there shouldn't be rational restrictions of ownership of certain weapons.

What law would have prevented this ? 

[Shockwave]

What law would have prevented this ? 

Huh? I'm not talking about more laws, I'm talking about cleaning up existing ones. I'm saying that I can't think of a logical argument as to why people should have full access to automatic weapons, military explosives and the like.

Nothing could have stopped this except for that dude being committed to the nut house.

[whork]

Huh? I'm not talking about more laws, I'm talking about cleaning up existing ones. I'm saying that I can't think of a logical argument as to why people should have full access to automatic weapons, military explosives and the like.

Nothing could have stopped this except for that dude being committed to the nut house.

+1

[Soul Crusher]

Huh? I'm not talking about more laws, I'm talking about cleaning up existing ones. I'm saying that I can't think of a logical argument as to why people should have full access to automatic weapons, military explosives and the like.

Nothing could have stopped this except for that dude being committed to the nut house.

Exactly.   No law would have prevented this. 

[The True Adonis]

I think the laws are fine the way they are actually, what needs to be different?

[Conker]

Drastically cutting the number of guns in circulation seems to be working pretty well in Australia

"The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

[avxo]

Exactly.   No law would have prevented this.

I don't think anyone's arguing that a law could have prevented this, so I'm not sure what the point of repeating what everyone else thinks serves...

I think the laws are fine the way they are actually, what needs to be different?

Small tweaks, here and there, in my opinion: Cleanup the whole "assault weapons" nonsense which is murky and meaningless and explicitly define the line demarcating what is and is not legal to own based on rational standards instead of what feels good on a particular day. Harmonize the patchwork of existing laws, or preempt them, so that gun owners who are travelling across states, don't just become felons simply by virtue of driving across a State?

I think that a big issue will, inevitably, be how to handle private-party sales and sales at gunshows.

On the issue of private-party sales, while I am loath to place restrictions on what private individuals can do with their property, I think that in the case of private sales of weapons, a provision that requires that for most transactions (except those between family members) the seller must be vetted against the existing system makes sense. To that end I would simply require that all such private sales be "signed off" by a licensed firearms vendor, who would run the same checks as he would for a weapon that he would sell at no cost (or for the actual cost he has to pay to perform such a background check query). To be clear, the vendor would not take a cut from the sale, nor would he be able to prevent the sale from going through unless the background check indicated that the buyer was legally prohibited from owning weapons. I realize that this has some privacy implications, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

Drastically cutting the number of guns in circulation seems to be working pretty well in Australia

"The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

Such a program would only reach a very limited audience in the United States and would take very few weapons off the streets. Those who have weapons illegally would be disinclined to turn their "pieces" in for a small wad of cash. The weapons that would be turned in would be either very old, non-functional weapons, or weapons owned by law-abiding citizens who wish to get rid of them and who could have, just as easily, sold their weapons to a local gun store.

[Shockwave]

Such a program would only reach a very limited audience in the United States and would take very few weapons off the streets. Those who have weapons illegally would be disinclined to turn their "pieces" in for a small wad of cash. The weapons that would be turned in would be either very old, non-functional weapons, or weapons owned by law-abiding citizens who wish to get rid of them and who could have, just as easily, sold their weapons to a local gun store.

Not to mention the geographic issue, they're essentially an isolated island. Much easier to control things like that when not connected to neighbors willing to supply you with whatever contraband you want.

Probably one of the reasons it was set up as a penal colony.

Mexico would step up to arm the criminals if we ever tried that. We're not Australia, shit that works there would simply not work here.

[The True Adonis]

I still think the laws are fine.  I don`t think any more laws will prevent anything.  If you are traveling with your firearm, its your responsibility to know the laws of the state you are bringing it to.  States already define what is and what is not an "Assault" Weapon so I don`t see any problem there.  The Federal Government should stay completely out of it this time.

[The True Adonis]

I also do not think handguns or rifles should be registered.  They do not have to be registered in NC and it works very well that way.  Counties can decide if they want Registration of Handguns and only one, Durham County, has done so but they are considered a joke anyways.

[Shockwave]

I still think the laws are fine.  I don`t think any more laws will prevent anything.  If you are traveling with your firearm, its your responsibility to know the laws of the state you are bringing it to.  States already define what is and what is not an "Assault" Weapon so I don`t see any problem there.  The Federal Government should stay completely out of it this time.

It seems like there is a ridiculous amount of laws on the books, it would probably help to clean them up some. Or as you said, let the states decide for themselves.

[The True Adonis]

It seems like there is a ridiculous amount of laws on the books, it would probably help to clean them up some. Or as you said, let the states decide for themselves.

This has to be a State Issue because the Demographics of New York are not the same as in say, North Carolina.  Couple that with Police response times and Law Enforcement availability differing all over the United States, rural and city, population densities, it just can`t be legislated Federally and be pertinent for all.

[Shockwave]

This has to be a State Issue because the Demographics of New York are not the same as in say, North Carolina.  Couple that with Police response times and Law Enforcement availability differing all over the United States, rural and city, population densities, it just can`t be legislated Federally and be pertinent for all.

Like I said in another thread, in Houston, the police won't respond until someone is shot.

[avxo]

I still think the laws are fine.  I don`t think any more laws will prevent anything.  If you are traveling with your firearm, its your responsibility to know the laws of the state you are bringing it to.  States already define what is and what is not an "Assault" Weapon so I don`t see any problem there.  The Federal Government should stay completely out of it this time.

The problem is that if I want to drive from Las Vegas to New York and the weapon I have is perfectly legal in both of those places, I can't just plug in "Las Vegas" and "New York" in Google maps and pick the shortest route. I have to check the laws of every State (and perhaps every county) through which the route will take me, lest I want to unknowingly break the law. 

I also do not think handguns or rifles should be registered.  They do not have to be registered in NC and it works very well that way.  Counties can decide if they want Registration of Handguns and only one, Durham County, has done so but they are considered a joke anyways.

I don't believe that laws (State or Federal) requiring weapons to be registered should exist. One of the big issues I originally had with the "checks" that eventually became law would be that they would amount to a de facto registration system. We can argue whether it has or not, but that's an entirely different issue.

[avxo]

This has to be a State Issue because the Demographics of New York are not the same as in say, North Carolina.  Couple that with Police response times and Law Enforcement availability differing all over the United States, rural and city, population densities, it just can`t be legislated Federally and be pertinent for all.

Of course one size doesn't fit all, and I'm not arguing for the Federal Government to have a monopoly on gun laws or to make laws about rural Minnesota from Washington D.C.. But there are many cases where Federal laws, which would preempt State laws make good sense. Consider, for example, the law requiring background checks.

[Dos Equis]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell

Good commentary.  Lots of misinformation out there. 

[Conker]

Such a program would only reach a very limited audience in the United States and would take very few weapons off the streets. Those who have weapons illegally would be disinclined to turn their "pieces" in for a small wad of cash. The weapons that would be turned in would be either very old, non-functional weapons, or weapons owned by law-abiding citizens who wish to get rid of them and who could have, just as easily, sold their weapons to a local gun store.

Why would it only reach a limited audience ,does Australia have a more advanced media network than the US?, and it wasn't a voluntary scheme where citizens "who wished" to give up there guns could, it was a mandatory buy up, if they didn't give them up they would become criminals.

All of the illegal guns you have were manufactured legally and filter down to the criminals, you will only ever cut the amount of illegal guns when you cut off the supply by reducing the number of guns being manufactured and in general circulation. The majority of gun murders and shootings are committed by criminals on criminals. So the real fallacy is that you need all these guns to protect yourselves from criminals, when innocent people are rarely the target anyway and having all the guns just makes it easier for criminals to get hold of them.

 "The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact," said David Kennedy, head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control. "When we act as if this fact of prior criminal activity isn't true, we send the signal that everybody's at risk all the time."

Kennedy emphasizes that every city also has "innocent victims who didn't do anything wrong and never have." But statistically, those victims are "an exception," he said."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/nopd_release_of_murder_victims.html

[avxo]

Why would it only reach a limited audience ,does Australia have a more advanced media network than the US?, and it wasn't a voluntary scheme where citizens "who wished" to give up there guns could, it was a mandatory buy up, if they didn't give them up they would become criminals.

I didn't mean "reach" in that sense. I meant that this sort of program would be of interest to a limited audience. Even if you successfully informed every single gun owner in the United States, the percentage who would respond would actually be low: after all, gun owners are almost always gun owners by choice since guns don't fall out of the sky and into people's laps. And those people could, if they wanted, legally sell their weapons for cash today without any gun buyback program.

All of the illegal guns you have were manufactured legally and filter down to the criminals, you will only ever cut the amount of illegal guns when you cut off the supply by reducing the number of guns being manufactured and in general circulation. The majority of gun murders and shootings are committed by criminals on criminals. So the real fallacy is that you need all these guns to protect yourselves from criminals, when innocent people are rarely the target anyway and having all the guns just makes it easier for criminals to get hold of them.

How would you reduce the number of guns being manufactured? No law can be passed in the United States to make gun ownership illegal or generally prohibit people from purchasing firearms; the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and a blanket prohibition on buying new guns would almost certainly be treated by the courts as a significant impediment in the exercise of that Constitutionally-guaranteed right. The only way to "bypass" that "problem" would be a new Amendment to strike out the Second Amendment. And the chances of that happening are exactly zero.

"The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact," said David Kennedy, head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control. "When we act as if this fact of prior criminal activity isn't true, we send the signal that everybody's at risk all the time."

I don't doubt that it's true that the majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories, although I think that's an improper use of statistics. But that aside, even if that's the case, so what? What does that have to do with anything?

Those with extensive criminal histories who have weapons (legally or illegally) would not be likely to take advantage of a gun buyback program for what should be fairly obvious reasons.