Question for libertarians

[tyr_13]

I forgot the 'Japan does it better' claim. I've spent a lot of time learning Japanese, learning about Japanese history and culture, and am currently trying to get a job there. Saying that because Japan has less violence in general, and guns specifically, and therefor we can do it here is stupid. The cultures are different, there are many, many factors.

In my Asian Psychology class we looked at the difference is gun deaths between Japan and the US, and more specifically suicide by gun. Suicide by gun is much, much higher in the US. One of the students postulated that if we had fewer guns in the US, like in Japan, then there would be less suicide. The professor said that may be the case, but it may not. I was of course forced to point out that the suicide rate in Japan for men (the group who normally kills themselves with guns) is much, much higher in Japan. So there is at least one situation which fewer guns does not lead to fewer deaths (although I maintain it is still an oversimplification).

 

[drkitten]

I mean, sorry to say this drkitten, your friend would have likely found something else that explodes to mess with.

Don't be sorry. But it would be nice it you were correct.

He/she would have done something stupid with another object. Stories are nice, but I know someone who died from a bungee cord. Damn, I forgot to add those to the list.

Yes, that's a standard rebuttal. It's also simply wrong, as demonstrated on this very thread.

Look at post 82 et seq. Guns are force multipliers; the victim of a gun assault is much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the victim of a knife assault. Similarly, I expect that a person who does something stupid with gunpowder is much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than a person who does something stupid with another explosive like dry ice. Uruk pointed this out as well : "That why guns were invented. Much more efficient than knives for killing."

It may not be possible to prevent violence entirely, but that's no argument not to make it difficult. It may not be possible to keep people from EVER hurting themselves, but that's no argument to make it easy for them to do so.

One of the things that makes me convinced that Libertarians are wrong is the fact that I have never seen a libertarian able to argue for their point of view without resorting to misrepresentation.

You've done a good job of that yourself:

You can't misuse what you don't have in the first place? People shouldn't have things that are dangerous?

Did I say that people shouldn't have things that are dangerous? (Hint: no.)
Did I even say that people shouldn't have guns? (Hint: no.)

If you have a legitimate reason to have a gun and you have the appropriate training to where I am convinced you can handle it with relative safety, I'm perfectly happy for you to have guns. I'll even buy them for you (and I do. Who do you think pays for PFC Snafu's assault rifle?)

But I see no reason to permit you to have guns without an overriding reason and appropriate concern for safety.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sir, with all due respect, this is outright moronic. You are saying it is easier to enforce a ban on weapons than a ban on driving? That is insane.

Sure it is. As no one is sugesting banning cars, and as there is a limited ammount you can do with firearms with out an industrial base. If you outlaw handguns you could outlaw handgun amunition. It then becomes entirely based on suggled materials.

You will not be able to prevent all firearms crimes, but say Japan has a rather low rate of firearms related deaths.

As people suggest banning the item in its entirety, not something people are suggesting with cars, it is a different approach.

A ban on driving, well that would require a significant change in the infarstructer of the country.

 

[drkitten]

I forgot the 'Japan does it better' claim. I've spent a lot of time learning Japanese, learning about Japanese history and culture, and am currently trying to get a job there. Saying that because Japan has less violence in general, and guns specifically, and therefor we can do it here is stupid.

Not half as stupid as saying "because Japan has less violence in general, and guns specifically, but Japan is different from us, therefore we cannot do it here."

In my Asian Psychology class we looked at the difference is gun deaths between Japan and the US, and more specifically suicide by gun. Suicide by gun is much, much higher in the US. One of the students postulated that if we had fewer guns in the US, like in Japan, then there would be less suicide. The professor said that may be the case, but it may not. I was of course forced to point out that the suicide rate in Japan for men (the group who normally kills themselves with guns) is much, much higher in Japan. So there is at least one situation which fewer guns does not lead to fewer deaths (although I maintain it is still an oversimplification).

That's not an argument against reducing guns.

Funny how so few Libertarians can distinguish between "that is not proven to work" and "that is proven not to work."

 

[Matteo Martini]

Probably not that much more than if they didn't have a gun. It comes down to the individual.
America managed to survive the wild west period rather nicely when quite a few wore handguns openly.

I guess it was called the "wild" west for quite some reasons.

Sure. It happens with cars also. The greater the number of cars the higher the number of auto related death. It's simple statistics.

It comes down to what you are willing to suffer in order to have what you want. Does our desire for cars justify or warrant the number of deaths due to auto accidents? I mean there is public transportation available in almost all areas. Would we save more lives by taking the bus or subway rather than drive?

Again.
I hoped you see things more realistically than Tyr13.

Easy. The father would take precautions to keep the child from getting to and using the gun. There are gun safes, trigger locks, barrel locks, keeping the ammo and gun separate, and educating the son in one form or another.

150 kids died from accidental gunshot wounds in the United States in 2003
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n24992313

I was rasied with guns and I never had an incident with a gun in my youth.

Are you a statistically relevant sample of the whole (American?) population?

In realty that was a very rare occurance. The movies tend to exaggerate.

I live in Texas. There are alot of gun owners here. Including me. I own a 9mm Browning and a 7.62 MAK-90.
The 9mm is for protection. (I live outside of city limits. It takes the law quite a bit of time to get out to where I live.)
The MAK-90 is for pleasure. It's fun for target practice and good for scaring off the coyotes. (My wife raises a few goats.)
But for exercise I'm into archery. Very few bow and arrow related deaths.

Anyhoos. There are alot of gun owners but no shoot outs amoungst the general populations. The only shoot outs that have been in my neck of the woods has been between the law and drug runners. And the drug runner are going to have wether gun are illegar or not.

Statistics show that gun-related deaths are much higher in the US (where it is easier to have guns) than in Italy, Japan or Germany, where it is more difficult.
And there are drug runners also in Italy and Japan.

But it does happen.

It is a question of how many deaths..

Certainly. That why guns were invented. Much more efficient than knives for killing. The point was also that if someone who had a gun was in the vacinity of the psycho, could have shot the psycho before he caused more deaths.

Unfortunately, it often happens that a psycho kills 10 people but I have never heard that people shoot the psycho while he is on rampage

 

[tyr_13]

Not half as stupid as saying "because Japan has less violence in general, and guns specifically, but Japan is different from us, therefore we cannot do it here."

Actually, it is more stupid. We cannot control guns in the same way as Japan. You can't just cut and paste stuff like that as it is a function of many parts coming together. Just the fact that we are an individualistic society makes it problematic.

That's not an argument against reducing guns.

Funny how so few Libertarians can distinguish between "that is not proven to work" and "that is proven not to work."

I'm not a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian. Nice attack based on an ideological stance though.

 

[tyr_13]

150 kids died from accidental gunshot wounds in the United States in 2003
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n24992313



Are you a statistically relevant sample of the whole (American?) population?

Wait, you actually point out that one person's personal experience is not statistically relevant, which is true, yet you point out that only 150 kids in the US died from accidental gunshot wounds? 150 is not a lot. 36,000 people in the US died from the flu last year. How many died in cars? On bikes? Damn man, way to kill your own argument.

Statistics show that gun-related deaths are much higher in the US (where it is easier to have guns) than in Italy, Japan or Germany, where it is more difficult.
And there are drug runners also in Italy and Japan.

The crime dynamics of Japan, German, Italy, and the US are radically different. You happened to pick three of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, and then compare them to the US. Yeah, way to oversimplify a complex problem down to guns. That sounds perfectly reasonable (/sarcasm).

It is a question of how many deaths..

Unfortunately, it often happens that a psycho kills 10 people but I have never heard that people shoot the psycho while he is on rampage

And some people would argue that it is because most people don't carry a gun that they can't shoot the psycho. Ban guns, and the psycho would just make a bomb or run people down with their cars (like they do in Germany 'ghost drivers').

 

[tyr_13]

Sure it is. As no one is sugesting banning cars, and as there is a limited ammount you can do with firearms with out an industrial base. If you outlaw handguns you could outlaw handgun amunition. It then becomes entirely based on suggled materials.

You will not be able to prevent all firearms crimes, but say Japan has a rather low rate of firearms related deaths.

As people suggest banning the item in its entirety, not something people are suggesting with cars, it is a different approach.

A ban on driving, well that would require a significant change in the infarstructer of the country.

Japan has lower crime rates overall, so blaming the guns is stupid. Do you have any idea how much ammo is actually out there? Ban handgun ammo in the US, not only will you still have tons of people handloading, but think about the smuggling from Canada and Mexico.

I'm not suggesting that the government ban cars. I've only been using that as a comparison to show how the fear of guns isn't proportional to the risk they present.

 

[uruk]

I guess it was called the "wild" west for quite some reasons.

It has more to do with movies and books than reality.

Again.
I hoped you see things more realistically than Tyr13.

I was pointing out that people are willing to put up with a certain amount of death in order to have something.
I am not saying it is right or wrong that is the way things are.

People get killed in cars and by cars but we still want them. Alcohol is indirectly responsible for many deaths each year but we still want it. More so with cigarettes, drugs, big macs, etc.

150 kids died from accidental gunshot wounds in the United States in 2003
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n24992313

In 2001 859 children died due to drowning in swimming pools, lakes, etc.
http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/DROWNING.pdf

People still like to go swimming dispite the number of deaths involved. People are willing to put up with a certain amount of death in order to have or do what they want.

Are you a statistically relevant sample of the whole (American?) population?

I'm a gun owner, I'm an american, There were guns in the house I grew up in. I'm part of a statistic somewhere. I'm just not part of a statistic that supports your argument.

Here are some interesting statistics concerning guns and crimes.:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Statistics show that gun-related deaths are much higher in the US (where it is easier to have guns) than in Italy, Japan or Germany, where it is more difficult.
And there are drug runners also in Italy and Japan.

According to this report, the US ranks 8th in the number of gun related deaths per capita world wide:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders

Interesting to note that there is something that Japan beats the US in and that is suicide. More people in Japan kill themselves than in the US and they do it with far fewer guns than than Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

It is a question of how many deaths..

wouldn't you say that one death is too much? Or are you saying there is an acceptable number of deaths just so long as some other country has more deaths than your country?

Unfortunately, it often happens that a psycho kills 10 people but I have never heard that people shoot the psycho while he is on rampage

That's probably because psycho shooting sprees do not happen that often.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It has more to do with movies and books than reality.

I was pointing out that people are willing to put up with a certain amount of death in order to have something. [..]

Got the point.
Thanks.

According to this report, the US ranks 8th in the number of gun related deaths per capita world wide:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders

That is a lot. However, maybe those deaths are mostly suicides?

Interesting to note that there is something that Japan beats the US in and that is suicide. More people in Japan kill themselves than in the US and they do it with far fewer guns than than Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Japan has a big problem with suicides.
It happens quite often that the metro is late because someone jumped into.

 

[uruk]

That is a lot. However, maybe those deaths are mostly suicides?

The report was on gun related murder. I am assuming they mean incidents where some one purposly shot and killed another person with a gun.

Japan has a big problem with suicides.
It happens quite often that the metro is late because someone jumped into.

It is an alarming problem. I really love the Japanese and Japanese pop culture. It is sad that there is an aspect to it that many feel there is no way out of a bad situation other than suicide.

 

[drkitten]

In 2001 859 children died due to drowning in swimming pools, lakes, etc.
http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/DROWNING.pdf

People still like to go swimming dispite the number of deaths involved. People are willing to put up with a certain amount of death in order to have or do what they want..

That's a quite good example. Notice that because swimming is such a dangerous activity, it's regulated. If you want to put a swimming pool in your yard, there are rules and regulations that you need to follow (including measures such as fencing it off so that the neighbor's kids can't wander in, having a list of required safety equipment that you have to have on-hand at all times, and in some cases, requiring you to have lifeguards around, with a certain minimum standard of training).

The idea that "because swimming is inherently dangerous, we shouldn't regulate it at all" gets no traction.

For some reason, only for guns do idiots believe that protective measures must be 100% effective to be implementable.

 

[tyr_13]

So wait, more children die in a regulated activity, and that argues for more regulation in a different field with fewer accidental deaths? Huh?

Also, pools are a little harder to hide and put in illegally than a gun...

And what person are you talking to that doesn't want any measures, or only 100% effective ones, to prevent gun violence?

 

[drkitten]

So wait, more children die in a regulated activity, and that argues for more regulation in a different field with fewer accidental deaths? Huh?

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

The reason that pools are regulated is because the regulations (demonstrably) reduce the death rate; this is demonstrable over what the (adjusted) death rate was before the regulations were put in.

If regulating pools can get, say, a 90% reduction in the death rate, then regulating pools is a good thing, yes?

Similarly, if firearms regulations can produce only a 50% reduction in accidental deaths, then that's 75 fewer grieving parents per year (and about 400 fewer guns deaths in total). If you can get only a 50% reduction in the gun murder rate, that's something like 6,000 fewer deaths per year.

Also, pools are a little harder to hide and put in illegally than a gun...

Which is a strong argument for making gun regulations tigher than pool regulations.

And what person are you talking to that doesn't want any measures, or only 100% effective ones, to prevent gun violence?

You, for one.

 

[tyr_13]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

The reason that pools are regulated is because the regulations (demonstrably) reduce the death rate; this is demonstrable over what the (adjusted) death rate was before the regulations were put in.

If regulating pools can get, say, a 90% reduction in the death rate, then regulating pools is a good thing, yes?

Similarly, if firearms regulations can produce only a 50% reduction in accidental deaths, then that's 75 fewer grieving parents per year (and about 400 fewer guns deaths in total). If you can get only a 50% reduction in the gun murder rate, that's something like 6,000 fewer deaths per year.

Which is a strong argument for making gun regulations tigher than pool regulations.

Reading comprehension is one of my strong suits, but what you said before isn't nearly the same as what you elaborate on here. Your hard numbers here are completely made up, and thus carry all the weight of other made up statistics. Accidental firearm deaths are already low, and good work championing gun safety and storage do well to help. If you think that regulation could reduce that number by 50%, I ask what kind of regulation? And how? If it does this by simply making it harder for legitimate gun ownership, and thus reducing time at risk, that isn't a very good thing.

Ever heard of cost-benefit analysis? That is what uruk was basically talking about. What is the cost of regulation, and what is the benefit? You postulate that the benefit is less accidental death, (a lot less) but you have to prove that. You also have to prove that it isn't undo interference.

If you really were concerned about children accidentally dieing, why not strong swimming and pool regulations? A 15% reduction in drowning deaths would save more lives than your regulation.

You, for one.

And now some lying, or is that an honest mistake? When did I say that we should have no regulation? When has the been my argument? I know in your head you have to think of me as some idiot Libertarian who wants no regulation of anything at all and oppose you on completely ideological grounds. This is simply not the case.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It is an alarming problem. I really love the Japanese and Japanese pop culture. It is sad that there is an aspect to it that many feel there is no way out of a bad situation other than suicide.

Japanese people maybe believe in reincarnation and not in hell for suicide.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Other point is, with free guns, it would be more easy for thug bands to go out in ten or twenty people all armed.
Then, they will be able to do whatever they want.
Nobody will be able to stop them from walking around in group of tens of people all armed.
Who will want to mess up with them, even armed?
It is one against twenty.
And, police will not be able to do anything to prevent them to go out all armed, as they will be allowed to have guns.

 

[suicidesamurai]

Other point is, with free guns, it would be more easy for thug bands to go out in ten or twenty people all armed.
Then, they will be able to do whatever they want.
Nobody will be able to stop them from walking around in group of tens of people all armed.
Who will want to mess up with them, even armed?
It is one against twenty.
And, police will not be able to do anything to prevent them to go out all armed, as they will be allowed to have guns.

Why would 'thug bands' want to go out and do whatever they want? That would just get them killed or arrested. When the police encounter superior weapons they bring in some of their own if they can. If you had these groups of people always walking around with assault weapons you would have some very well-armed police officers. Just because you give people the freedom to do something doesn't mean the world turns into an apocalyptic free-for-all.

Thugs of all types already have access to very dangerous weapons. They just don't carry them around because there would be no point. Active gang members carry illegally acquired handguns on them pretty much all the time.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
Thugs of all types already have access to very dangerous weapons. They just don't carry them around because there would be no point. Active gang members carry illegally acquired handguns on them pretty much all the time.

Maybe they do not carry them around as it is illegal and they may be arrested any time.
Things would be different if carrying guns is legalized.

I do not really know, maybe it is just a problem of not being used to having people hanging out with guns freely

 

[uruk]

~snip~ The idea that "because swimming is inherently dangerous, we shouldn't regulate it at all" gets no traction.

For some reason, only for guns do idiots believe that protective measures must be 100% effective to be implementable.

I think that it has to do with what the gun is designed for and the fear and stigma that surrounds it and fear tends to make people overreact.

Swimming pools do not have the bad press that guns have.

Think about a grizzly bear and a panda bear. Most people will find the grizzly bear to be scary and vicious looking but the panda bear looks cute and cuddly yet the panda bear is just as dangerous as the grizzly.

As a result the grizzly gets to do the "when nature attack" show on the Discovery channel and the panda gets a cute and funny kids movie.