Gun Control is ridiculous

[volatile]

What I said doesn't specifically state guns in the home are particularly dangerous as compared to any other guns. My point was that the chance of using a gun for self defense pales in comparison to being injured by a firearm, to the point where lowering the number of guns in the population seems the obvious choice. It's not practical because people love guns, but just because many people hold to a belief doesn't make it correct.

Quite. I don't think my interpretation contradicted that - having a gun "for protection" is absurd given those figures- though I appreciate your clarification of the methodology.

 

[Darat]

And that is my opinion. It's too subjective to be of any use here.

OK you won't answer my question in a meaningful way.

 

[Darat]

I am wondering since everyone in this thread is apparently for gun control if in principle you would support a system in the USA that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime in the USA, and significantly reduced the rate of accidents from firearms BUT required very strict gun controls (such as no handguns at all for private individuals) to be implemented?

 

[volatile]

I am wondering since everyone in this thread is apparently for gun control if in principle you would support a system in the USA that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime in the USA, and significantly reduced the rate of accidents from firearms BUT required very strict gun controls (such as no handguns at all for private individuals) to be implemented?

The responses from the firearms proponents would seem to suggest not, as that particular set of circumstances would render them personally unable to shoot any individual threat should the circumstances arise.

That's the key. There's extrapolation going on in both arguments. Gun proponents believe that their guns make them safer, therefore the most safe position would be if everyone had guns. Gun opponents believe that guns in general make society less safe, therefore the most safe position would be the eradication of guns (as far as possible). This isn't about the benefit (or perceived benefit) to society, it's about the benefit (or perceived benefit) to the individual. That's really the ideological debate at the heart of this particular issue, as whilst strict gun control advocates believe their position would on balance be better for everyone, those who are for gun liberalisation believe their position is better for themselves.

It's individualism vs communalism at its basest, really.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yet I have seen no proposal that would adequately cause neither side to have no firearm.

Banning firearms would work just as well as prohibition. A continued restriction on firearms licenses would eventually cause an uproar in the population.

I think this is the crux of the matter. You may well be correct that in the US it would be unacceptable to the population to restrict firearm licences. In many other countries, including the UK, it would be unacceptable to the population to allow people to legally carry handguns.

I guess it comes down to different strokes for different folks.

How many Thomas Hamiltons are in society?

A small number. However he is clearly not unique given that several spree killings have taken place in the US and elsewhere. Funnily enough they all seem to involve guns - if the argument is that a killer will kill whether guns are available or not, surely there are examples of spree killings where guns were not used?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am wondering since everyone in this thread is apparently for gun control if in principle you would support a system in the USA that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime in the USA, and significantly reduced the rate of accidents from firearms BUT required very strict gun controls (such as no handguns at all for private individuals) to be implemented?

I am wondering, since everyone in this thread is apparently for reduced crime, if you would support a system for the UK that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime but required very loose gun controls (such as free availability of hanguns to private individuals and an absolute right to concealed carry) to be implemented?

Answering no to either your question or mine requires you to be opposed to reducing violent crime.

The problem is that those who believe in less gun control do not accept that a system such as the one you refer to would reduce violent crime, and those who believe in more gun control do not believe that a system like the one I outlined would reduce violent crime.

 

[Lothian]

I am wondering, since everyone in this thread is apparently for reduced crime, if you would support a system for the UK that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime but required very loose gun controls (such as free availability of hanguns to private individuals and an absolute right to concealed carry) to be implemented?

I would be tempted. However, as we see here, once you go down the freely available gun route, people are very reluctant to give those guns up so it is not a decision that can be reversed easily. We would therefore need to be sure it will reduced the crime rate.
If we were sure it would work I would go with it although I would not take one myself.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I would be tempted. However, as we see here, once you go down the freely available gun route, people are very reluctant to give those guns up so it is not a decision that can be reversed easily. We would therefore need to be sure it will reduced the crime rate.
If we were sure it would work I would go with it although I would not take one myself.

And how could you be sure in advance that it would reduce the crime rate?

I can imagine a very, very similar answer being provided to Darat's question.

 

[CFLarsen]

I dunno, call me crazy, but I just don't feel so paranoid about the gun situation...

1 out of every four Oklahomans? And that's "just" 8% greater than the U.S. average?

I may not be a math major, but that seems to contradict the very low figures of overall chances of U.S. citizens being injured with firearms.

Either way, I'm still not that scared, really. There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. I'm just playing with the numbers you guys are providing.

I'm more likely to be injured or hospitalized by non-guns. As it is, I don't lie in constant worry of being hit by a car. Why should I be paranoid about firearms like you guys are?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of someone who wants to see evidence, but when the evidence doesn't match his preconceived notions, he ignores it.

Yes, I will hunt with anything that is legal, not just guns. When I was in Hawaii, I was able to hunt with a knife and spear, but not successfully

You are reading too much into my answer. I said those who are truthful can be trusted. Anyone who lies to buy a gun is not trustworthy. I did not say anything about determining who is lying or telling the truth.

I am not naive enough to believe that everyone tells the truth when filling out the 4473.

But then, you don't know if those filling out 4473 are trustworthy or not. Correct?

Sure, cars do kill people. They kill more people than guns in the USA. Of the people I know, I trust fewer of the car drivers than the gun owners not to hurt anyone. I have made comparisons in the past, but because they are such completely different objects, car/gun analogies are not all that great.

So why are you so mean spirited that you have to read things that are not posted? Try using your eyes instead of your imagination when you read these posts.

I'm not mean spirited. I'm pointing out that there are serious flaws in your argument.

Statistics are not always relevant either. How can you apply a mere statistic to any one person? You can't in this case. If a person chooses his friends carelessly, and ends up showing off guns to psychopaths, druggies and killers, then he or she is at risk of getting shot by the friends more than a person who has friends that are stable and trustworthy around firearms.

We apply statistics to any one person to know what the risks are for that particular person. You can erect all sorts of conditions to diminish the risk of something happening. Like, oh, removing the gun in the first place.

you are a genius...Take the safety off....pull the trigger you say?? Never knew that. But anyway...when a child has shot another child while showing off dad's gun while the responsible owner snores in bed I'm sure the fact that the safety had to be removed (if it has one) and the trigger had to be pulled would make all the difference. Yes, I know you are far too responsible for anything like this to ever happen to you....all these responsible gun owners.... 100% so far....never spoke to a gun owner on this forum who is not 100% responsible and absolutely flawlessly perfect...I wonder who has all the accidents then??

Now, that is a very good question.

I've opened this thread "What do gun proponents think about certain issues?".

 

[Darat]

I am wondering, since everyone in this thread is apparently for reduced crime, if you would support a system for the UK that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime but required very loose gun controls (such as free availability of hanguns to private individuals and an absolute right to concealed carry) to be implemented?

...snip...

Personally I would still not carry a gun or own one at home because of my personal feelings towards guns but certainly I would support such a system.

Answering no to either your question or mine requires you to be opposed to reducing violent crime.

...snip...

I don't think it does, it may just be that you hold gun ownership more important then a reduction in crime. (The same way I hold certain personal freedoms more important then the reduction in crime that could result from them being lost - e.g. a system that had every citizen tagged and their movements monitored and recorded 24 hours a day even though that would reduce crime.)

 

[Lothian]

And how could you be sure in advance that it would reduce the crime rate?

I can imagine a very, very similar answer being provided to Darat's question.

I don't know but I am open to be persuaded, but nothing I have seen so far has come close.

I suspect that similar answers may come from the other side, however, there is a big difference between freely allowing guns and having a proportion of the population not taking up the offer and restricting guns and having a proportion of the population refusing to give them up.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't know but I am open to be persuaded, but nothing I have seen so far has come close.

With the greatest possible respect, I don't think you are open to be persuaded - I cannot think of any evidence that could conceivably be obtained that would convince you (and this applies to people on both sides, including myself) to agree to allow free ownership and concealed carry (or on the other side to accept no availability of guns to private citizens).

 

[Darat]

With the greatest possible respect, I don't think you are open to be persuaded - I cannot think of any evidence that could conceivably be obtained that would convince you (and this applies to people on both sides, including myself) to agree to allow free ownership and concealed carry (or on the other side to accept no availability of guns to private citizens).

I think it depends on what you mean by "conceivably be obtained".

I see the problem at the moment being that there seems to be no way we can use the data we currently have to make firm conclusions regarding the likely effect of gun ownership in a society has on something as complex as the level and type of crime in society.

(We can however draw conclusions regarding issues such as accidental deaths and injures from guns.)

However I do think it is conceivable that our ability to model complex interactions within a society and predict the outcomes of varying those interactions will continue to improve and I do think a time will come when we will be able to say with a reasonable level of confidence what the very likely outcome will be of say introducing less gun controls in UK society.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think it depends on what you mean by "conceivably be obtained".

I see the problem at the moment being that there seems to be no way we can use the data we currently have to make firm conclusions regarding the likely effect of gun ownership in a society has on something as complex as the level and type of crime in society.

(We can however draw conclusions regarding issues such as accidental deaths and injures from guns.)

However I do think it is conceivable that our ability to model complex interactions within a society and predict the outcomes of varying those interactions will continue to improve and I do think a time will come when we will be able to say with a reasonable level of confidence what the very likely outcome will be of say introducing less gun controls in UK society.

You might be correct. However I think the wording used is informative. Lothian spoke of being "sure". Your post uses the words "reasonable level of confidence" and "likely outcome" - I don't think that the level of confidence required by proponents of either side to accept the opposite is "reasonable", I think it is much, much higher.

 

[Darat]

You might be correct. However I think the wording used is informative. Lothian spoke of being "sure". Your post uses the words "reasonable level of confidence" and "likely outcome" - I don't think that the level of confidence required by proponents of either side to accept the opposite is "reasonable", I think it is much, much higher.

That's only because many years posting on this Forum has made me quite reluctant to use words such as "certain", "sure" and so on.

All I would need is to be able to understand whether the models made accurate predictions or not. (And I'm using accurate in the sense of "known levels of error".)

 

[CFLarsen]

With the greatest possible respect, I don't think you are open to be persuaded - I cannot think of any evidence that could conceivably be obtained that would convince you (and this applies to people on both sides, including myself) to agree to allow free ownership and concealed carry (or on the other side to accept no availability of guns to private citizens).

So, you believe that free ownership and concealed carry is the default position, and that it is up to opponents to provide evidence against it?

(Which, incidentally, is question #36)...

 

[Lothian]

With the greatest possible respect, I don't think you are open to be persuaded - I cannot think of any evidence that could conceivably be obtained that would convince you (and this applies to people on both sides, including myself) to agree to allow free ownership and concealed carry (or on the other side to accept no availability of guns to private citizens).

I am open but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (he say's almost proving in one statement that he is not open).

However it is not me that needs the evidence it is parliament. What extraordinary evidence do they need before taking drastic action ? In the case of Iraq not a lot but in this case I suspect that they will need a hell of a lot if they are to vote for it and retain their seats.

 

[Quad4_72]

Requiring education is not restricting gun ownership? Education Requirements are restrictions, they are a gun controls. Can I buy that gun? Have you attended the training? No.....sorry, you are not allowed a gun. You are banned from owning a gun because you have not done a course.

Yes, and if you do the course, you can have a gun. Not too hard is it?

Where did your founding fathers ok denying someone a gun because they have not satisfied a training requirement? Why isn't compulsory training as a method of regulating gun ownership rediculous as proclaimed in the thread title....

When I was talking about gun control, I meant things such as banning, heavy restrictions, denying you the right to carry certain places, etc. I have made it very clear what I meant by ridiculous gun control in this thread. If you want to keep thinking otherwise, that is your business. By the way, stop spelling ridiculous incorrectly. It is spelled correctly in the title so it should not be too hard to get right.

Why are you not to be regarded as anti gun? You are just another gun control advocate like me.....defying the clear intentions of your founding fathers by desiring to place restrictions on peoples right to bear arms.

I have placed NO RESTRICTIONS on the right to bear arms. Requiring a class is not taking away anyone's guns. It is not taking away anyone's rights and it most certainly does not make me anti-gun. Believing that people should be more educated about their guns makes me a gun control advocate? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So, you believe that free ownership and concealed carry is the default position, and that it is up to opponents to provide evidence against it?

(Which, incidentally, is question #36)...

Nope.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am open but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (he say's almost proving in one statement that he is not open).

However it is not me that needs the evidence it is parliament. What extraordinary evidence do they need before taking drastic action ? In the case of Iraq not a lot but in this case I suspect that they will need a hell of a lot if they are to vote for it and retain their seats.

And what makes a claim that having guns freely available reduces crime more extraordinary than one that claims that attempting to restrict guns achieves this? Other than personal perspective/belief?

I agree with you that the UK parliament would need a hell of a lot (i.e. more than can conceivably be obtained) to allow free carry. I also think that the US Senate/Congress would equaly need a hell of a lot to support no availability.