Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401124 |
Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
- 1,089 Replies
Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", and while they may be less frequent in other countries those other countries also have significantly smaller populations, fewer immigrants, and are lower targets of international terrorist organizations.Less frequency per capita is still less frequency per capita. Therefore, population is irrelevant.
Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures".Given the fact that the only other gun-related concern is suicide, this is only rational.
Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next.No. The point is that only the most extreme 10% of NRA members are opposing gun control. If you'd bothered to read the whole article, you would know this.
Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't.Well, no, it doesn't. If you want to use statistics as justification, you're going to have to actually provide those statistics and some reference of their source. Simply claiming that "there are some statistics somewhere that prove this is wrong in some way" isn't good enough.
If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better?Who knows. You might very easily have a more informed argument to present.
Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", [...]
Technically, Obama's quote does not say 'these kind of attacks', but 'this kind of mass violence'. I guess the term is sufficiently loose to be twisted into anything, but the situation in the US is unique, even after normalizing for population, immigration and whatever.
This quote is promptly followed by highly questionable poll results. 9 out of 10 Americans don't agree on anything.
A poll is a poll. If you said their sample size was too small, that would be something; but if your only point is 'I don't believe the results', then why should I take this argument any more seriously than you take the poll? (Btw, if you click the link in the article, they give three more issues with 80/90% poll results).
Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures".
The formulation seems to represent the situation in other countries, however.
Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next.
The NRA propaganda was taken as reference because those are the arguments most often repeated by people who oppose gun control. If you are more moderate than those 'extremists', I have to wonder why the article makes you react so strongly.
Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't.
The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.
If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better? You said- either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.
but it seems like the only reason to think this article is anything other than rhetoric is because
- It supports my opinion on the matter
My bad. I intended to say that I think both sides should read the article carefully.
The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.
Not to mention he is a University professor, which yes, still means something when it comes to academic research.
And most importantly, aside from all the statistics, all the numbers and research, on the logical side, do you think criminals in a country where guns are so common will not have planned for the event that the victim/target may possess a gun?
Which is why the statistic percentage presented, "the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents" makes sense.
I think it's important to assess this article for what it is. Although it reads like an argument in favour of gun control, it isn't one. Instead, this is an article that looks at - and attempts to defeat - some popular arguments against gun control. In other words, it works to undermine the anti-gun-control arguments, with only a bit of pro-gun-control argumentation thrown in. And really, the only arguments on this front have to do with tighter regulations on issuing gun licenses (e.g. more stringent background checks and legislation aimed at keeping guns in a secure safe).
As far as the statistics go, I don't think any of us are in a position to take them at anything other than face value. We would need to read the actual studies and/or relevant journal articles to properly assess the statistics based on these studies.
What we can do, however, is question what exactly these statistics show.
Take, for example, the second sentence of the article:
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued."
This (and the following sentence) carry the implication that the NRA had something to do with the lack of federal action. While this may be the case, the author needs to provide some sort of evidence for this claim. After all, there are many reasons why federal action might not have ensued that are completely independent of the NRA's agenda.
But more troubling is the following passage:
"Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979-2012, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC [right to carry] laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted these laws."
This is suggesting one of two things. In a weak sense, it's implying that violent crime rates would be lower had these states not adopted right to carry laws. There's a stronger claim, however, that RTC laws actually caused the increase in violence.
But the basic premise upon which these claims rest is a weak one. It cites a 4-19% increase in violent crime rates in these states. But it order to show that RTC laws had anything to do with this increase, we would have to build a time machine, go back, and then not adopt these laws to see the effect.
Odds are, the author used some sort of standard metric for expected change in violent crime. But even if such a metric was well-established and accepted, all it would show is that these states saw an increase in violent crimes. It's very difficult to link this matter of fact to a particular cause, such as RTC laws.
I think the most compelling point of the article is that gun control is a country-wide and even worldwide problem. People in countries with tight gun control can get what they need from other countries. The same goes even more so for discrepancies in gun control across U.S. states.
In short, any move towards effective gun control in the U.S. is going to have to come at the federal level. Particular states, regions, or cities imposing restrictions will do very little to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And this seems something well worth thinking about.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
- from article.
i lol'd. xD
=====================
just my opinion in short:
not all criminals are murderers.
less guns = less escalation of violent events = less deaths...
Technically, Obama's quote does not say 'these kind of attacks', but 'this kind of mass violence'.
It's difficult to properly word "this kind of mass violence" in the context of my sentence and I decided for the slightly paraphrased version for simplicity.
I guess the term is sufficiently loose to be twisted into anything, but the situation in the US is unique, even after normalizing for population, immigration and whatever.
I've already discussed it in another thread, but overall the U.S. averages only slightly higher than seemingly peaceful European nations that do have gun control laws, like the UK, and that's without factoring in matters like population, landmass, population density, and population diversity.
The U.S. is also a very unique country. Our size, our wealth, our relative youth, our neighboring nations, and the number of immigrants are all vastly different from any European nation. There really is no solid comparison.
A poll is a poll.
You can't possibly be that naive. Most small children aren't that naive these days. News organizations, lobbyists, and corporations are all notorious for cherry picking who they poll for the sake of swinging the results in their favor. Any poll that says 90% of people agree probably chose 90% of the people they questioned from lists of individuals who publicly voiced the opinion that poll is supposed to sell. Polls are nothing more than a tool for manipulating public opinion, and media companies like ABC are the worst offenders.
The formulation seems to represent the situation in other countries, however.
Rebranding your stance to make it seem more friendly to the public is a common and cheap tactic of the two-party political system. It's why people who are against abortion identify as "ro-life" and those for it are "ro-choice". The type of people susceptible to this are more likely to join a cause that's supporting something and like to feel like they're supporting something positive, in my example the right to life or the right to choose how you'll live your life. In this case, gun control advocates are using the same means of manipulating stupid people into supporting their cause rather than using actual facts or evidence to convince those in power.
The NRA propaganda was taken as reference because those are the arguments most often repeated by people who oppose gun control. If you are more moderate than those 'extremists', I have to wonder why the article makes you react so strongly.
The only reason extremists seem to represent a group is because in their nature as extremists they're willing to go to the extreme to get attention. I am very moderate on the issue of gun control, I believe there are reasonable limits to what people should be allowed to own and limits to what the government is permitted to ban.
My issue is not with gun control, it's with biased media. You propped up an article as a good read with substantive claims, but after reading 20% of it I found myself wading through enough blatant unsupported rhetoric that I wasn't even willing to finish reading the article. When I refuse to finish something that quickly, it's garbage. I once spent a month eating nothing but the foulest tasting premade burger patties in existence simply because I was unwilling to let the food go bad after my idiot roommate bought them. I will read a minimum of 100 pages of any book no matter how horrible it seems, because I don't want to make a snap judgement on something that can take a long time to build momentum. That first section of the article was 4 paragraphs, 3 sentences, and 1 presidential quote but that was all it took for me to lose interest in the article.
The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.
Being familiar with the numbers and understanding their meaning are two very different things. He's spent 25 years reading politically biased news stories, watching politically biased news channels, and discussing it with friends who hold the same biases on the subject he does. Every time someone accidentally discharges a gun into their own foot it counts as "gun violence" in the U.S. That's a big difference from the mass shootings that prompt these kinds of debates. This is a very wide subject that requires a lot of time spent studying details and defining the severity of events to gain a true understanding of it.
Not to mention he is a University professor, which yes, still means something when it comes to academic research.
His teaching law at Stanford has never seemed to stop him from making unsubstantiated claims before. He's most well known for the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, a hypothesis that states legalized abortion is killing off criminals before they can be born but shrugs it's shoulders at why nations that haven't legalized abortion are seeing similar drops in crime rates. It doesn't try to explain why nations that legalized abortion at different times all started seeing reduced crime rates at about the same time during the 90s either. It would appear that his standard operating procedure is to use rhetoric disguised as academic study to spread his own left-wing opinions.
I've already discussed it in another thread, but overall the U.S. averages only slightly higher than seemingly peaceful European nations that do have gun control laws, like the UK, and that's without factoring in matters like population, landmass, population density, and population diversity.I already explained this on the last page so: No.
News organizations, lobbyists, and corporations are all notorious for cherry picking who they poll for the sake of swinging the results in their favor.Yes, and the gun lobby is one of those habitual cherry-pickers.
In this case, gun control advocates are using the same means of manipulating stupid people into supporting their cause rather than using actual facts or evidence to convince those in power.The whole and entire point of gun control legislation is to reduce the occurrence of crimes. It is as much rebranding as calling gumballs "candy".
You propped up an article as a good read with substantive claims, but after reading 20% of it I found myself wading through enough blatant unsupported rhetoric that I wasn't even willing to finish reading the article.Really? Show me any 5 that weren't from quotes.
When I refuse to finish something that quickly, it's garbage.Because your personal opinion on the validity of an article is the universal standard that everyone must adhere to. Of course, I must have forgotten.
That first section of the article was 4 paragraphs, 3 sentences, and 1 presidential quote but that was all it took for me to lose interest in the article.If you can't be bothered to look at any of the details in the remainder of the article, your analysis isn't going to be worth much. All you're doing here is making a fool of yourself, and conveniently ignoring reality isn't going to change that.
He's spent 25 years reading politically biased news stories, watching politically biased news channels, and discussing it with friends who hold the same biases on the subject he does.The pretentiousness of that assumption is only surpassed by its hypocricy. All news stories are biased. Every opinion is biased. All you've established here is that he's been living a normal life in a modern first-world setting. You attempt to discredit him by suggesting without evidence that he is ignorant of the reality of the issue due to his biases, yet, by your own admission, you have shown that your own biases prevent you from even reading the whole article.
He's most well known for the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, a hypothesis that states legalized abortion is killing off criminals before they can be born but shrugs it's shoulders at why nations that haven't legalized abortion are seeing similar drops in crime rates.1 It's a study (as in, an analytical investigation of real data); not a hypothesis (a speculative proposal as to the possible outcome of a study or experiment).
2 The study compared the crime rates of different U.S. states. What happened in other nations was beyond the scope of the study.
3 It does not state that legalized abortion is killing off criminals. It doesn't even conclude anything like that.
This is a very wide subject that requires a lot of time spent studying details and defining the severity of events to gain a true understanding of it.
That is precisely why I mentioned his 25 years of research on the topic which, unlike you (and I), certainly put him in a position of 'true understanding'.
Take, for example, the second sentence of the article:
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued."This (and the following sentence) carry the implication that the NRA had something to do with the lack of federal action. While this may be the case, the author needs to provide some sort of evidence for this claim. After all, there are many reasons why federal action might not have ensued that are completely independent of the NRA's agenda.
While that may be true, you have to wonder why then have there been no federal action when a majority (to avoid specific numbers) of the people want background checks? I propose a plausible cause, which is the lobbyism of the NRA among federal circles. Not only the 'proper' lobby, but also those politicians who are members themselves. Ideally, the people would vote on the issue and we'd be settled, but that is not how the US works.
You must be logged in to post a reply!