Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
LOl...Actual counts?? How does one do that when every single survey, report, statistics compiled by many researchers are so different. There is no question that the US has an astronomical number of guns per person flitting about and in comparison Canada has not even one per person. Considering the differences in our populations those numbers weren't too bad.
Actually, the USA rate is about 90 guns per 100 people.....so the USA does not have "even one per person", much less Canada.
Some facts for ya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
I'm beginning to wonder if bb has sumpin against guns..............or is it just my imagination?
I'm going to take the anti-gun position as a mental exercise. I've invited Colpy to hash this out with me, others are welcome to stick their oars in (like I could stop y'all).
OK, my thesis: Democratic governments have the right to forbid or restrict the possession of firearms by the people. I will argue specifically that governments can ban handguns entirely to people who are not agents of the state, and can severely limit rifles and shotguns to hunting purposes. I will work mostly with U.S. law, i.e., the Second Amendment, Federal and state laws, and cases interpreting them. Colpy is well familiar with most of this body of law.
We start with a few facts:
There are approximately 32,000 non-legitimate deaths (I exclude shootings by police or citizens that are ruled legitimate) by firearm per year in the United States (speaking of the last five years). Of these, about 1000 are accidents, about 20,000 are suicides, and about 11,000 are homicides. That would be roughly one in 10,000 people in the U.S., or 1/100 of a percent, each year.
There are approximately 73,000 non-fatal firearms injuries and wounds per year, roughly 2.4 per 10,000 people in the U.S., or 1/40 of a percent, each year.
The large majority of death/wounding, on the order of 90%, is by handguns.
There are approximately 250 to 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. There is no effective database on ownership.
So the downside of very liberal gun-ownership laws is about 30,000 deaths and 70,000 woundings per year. That's comparable to the deaths and injuries in automobile accidents. The large majority of these deaths and woundings could be prevented by strict controls on gun ownership. By this I mean preventing people from possessing guns (I'll get into legal vs. illegal possession later).
The upside of liberal gun-ownership laws are:
Self-defence.
Collective self-defence (against gangs of bandits and. . . well. . . me. Or at least my ancestors).
Resistance to foreign invasion.
Individual and collective resistance to tyranny (including the threat of such resistance).
Hunting.
Target shooting for pleasure.
I submit that the only reasonable upsides are self-defence, resistance to tyranny, and hunting. The other "militia" purposes have been taken over by police and military (which did not exist in 1787), and I think most reasonable people would agree that if you weigh the freedom to go plinking at the range against 30,000 deaths and 70,000 woundings per year, the answer is fairly obvious. I also want to exclude hunting, unless someone cares to argue that there is some form of hunting that cannot be accomplished with a rifle or shotgun limited to a three-round capacity. I know some people hunt with pistols or AR-15s. I would suggest that the number is so small as to be insignificant, and that they can hunt just as effectively with the aforementioned limited-magazine rifles or shotguns.
That leaves us with self-defence and resistance to tyranny as the significant upsides of liberal gun laws (I use "liberal" here in the classic sense of permissive or allowing great freedom. I'm well aware that most anti-gunners are political liberals).
Let's start there. Please add whatever you think relevant, or dispute the facts. When we're on the same page, I'll take on self-defence and resistance to tyranny.
OK, my thesis: Democratic governments have the right to forbid or restrict the possession of firearms by the people. I will argue specifically that governments can ban handguns entirely to people who are not agents of the state, and can severely limit rifles and shotguns to hunting purposes. I will work mostly with U.S. law, i.e., the Second Amendment, Federal and state laws, and cases interpreting them. Colpy is well familiar with most of this body of law.
We start with a few facts:
There are approximately 32,000 non-legitimate deaths (I exclude shootings by police or citizens that are ruled legitimate) by firearm per year in the United States (speaking of the last five years). Of these, about 1000 are accidents, about 20,000 are suicides, and about 11,000 are homicides. That would be roughly one in 10,000 people in the U.S., or 1/100 of a percent, each year.
There are approximately 73,000 non-fatal firearms injuries and wounds per year, roughly 2.4 per 10,000 people in the U.S., or 1/40 of a percent, each year.
The large majority of death/wounding, on the order of 90%, is by handguns.
There are approximately 250 to 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. There is no effective database on ownership.
So the downside of very liberal gun-ownership laws is about 30,000 deaths and 70,000 woundings per year. That's comparable to the deaths and injuries in automobile accidents. The large majority of these deaths and woundings could be prevented by strict controls on gun ownership. By this I mean preventing people from possessing guns (I'll get into legal vs. illegal possession later).
The upside of liberal gun-ownership laws are:
Self-defence.
Collective self-defence (against gangs of bandits and. . . well. . . me. Or at least my ancestors).
Resistance to foreign invasion.
Individual and collective resistance to tyranny (including the threat of such resistance).
Hunting.
Target shooting for pleasure.
I submit that the only reasonable upsides are self-defence, resistance to tyranny, and hunting. The other "militia" purposes have been taken over by police and military (which did not exist in 1787), and I think most reasonable people would agree that if you weigh the freedom to go plinking at the range against 30,000 deaths and 70,000 woundings per year, the answer is fairly obvious. I also want to exclude hunting, unless someone cares to argue that there is some form of hunting that cannot be accomplished with a rifle or shotgun limited to a three-round capacity. I know some people hunt with pistols or AR-15s. I would suggest that the number is so small as to be insignificant, and that they can hunt just as effectively with the aforementioned limited-magazine rifles or shotguns.
That leaves us with self-defence and resistance to tyranny as the significant upsides of liberal gun laws (I use "liberal" here in the classic sense of permissive or allowing great freedom. I'm well aware that most anti-gunners are political liberals).
Let's start there. Please add whatever you think relevant, or dispute the facts. When we're on the same page, I'll take on self-defence and resistance to tyranny.
really? I see nothing new. He even uses skewed stats that have been tried and used in the past. Where are these "lawyerly skills" he was talking about?
In the American context, the Bill of Rights clearly contradicts your claim.
As does the Supreme Court in Heller.
Some restriction, yes. But you can not forbid the use of arms without throwing the Constitution out the window. Indeed, the phrase "....shall not be infringed" leaves little elbow room for gun control at all....
Now, setting aside for a moment the Constitution, the question that has to be tackled is how would removing firearms from the mix alter the death rate??
Two thirds of the death by firearm in the USA are suicides. Yet the suicide rate in Canada and the USA remains very close to identical. Canada has tough gun control. Indeed, the rate of suicide with firearms fell in Canada after the 1995 imposition of draconian gun control.....but the overall suicide rate remained stable. This would indicate that those determined to remove themselves from this earth do not require a firearm to do so. A gun might be convenient, but there are lots of high places, ropes. and razor blades available that make you just as dead......and the stats indicate that if the gun is not there, a short drive to the nearest bridge always is.........and will be used.
As for accidents, they are tragic. However, there can be no liberty without some level of risk.....and the risk of accidental death by firearm is remote.
In 2010, there were 600 accidental firearms deaths in the USA.
FIREARMS TUTORIAL
To compare, in 2010:
Unintentional fall deaths: 27,483
Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,783
Unintentional poisoning deaths: 36,280
FastStats - Accidents or Unintentional Injuries
Kinda puts the gun accident thing in perspective, doesn't it??
Part of my argument will be that either 1. The Second Amendment should be repealed, or 2. Even within the Second Amendment, far more can be done to limit guns than is currently being done.
Sound points. I would argue. . .
Given the relative ineffectiveness of most methods of suicide compared to guns, the lack of guns would reduce successful suicide attempts by several thousands at least (and homicides by considerably more).
I consider your second point irrelevant. It amounts to saying "there are other things that cause more deaths, therefore we shouldn't do anything about guns." It assumes that we can't limit guns at the same time as we attack other problems, a false assumption.
I note that one of the dangers of death you point out is traffic accidents. That could work as an argument in favour of much stricter gun control, i.e., control guns as extensively as we do cars: registration, inspection, licensure of both cars and operators, mandatory design features to maximise safety, etc.
I will assume from your answer that you accept my other premises, at least for the sake of argument, and that we are talking about my two primary upsides of gun control, self-defence and resistance of tyranny, plus a generalised liberty interest.
Taking the last first, I would note that governments place significant limitations, to the point of outright banning, various dangerous instrumentalities with little attention to liberty. Explosives, some chemicals, and drugs both controlled and prescription come to mind. And a gun is a dangerous instrumentality. I take it there is no debate that a gun massively increases the chances of a violent act becoming a lethal act. There's a reason that everywhere outside of comic books, guns are the weapon of choice. Nothing else comes close in sheer lethality.
I plan to argue that the upsides of gun ownership are small and tenuous enough that preventing half of the deaths and woundings that occur every year in the U.S. is sufficient reason to limit gun possession very sharply, just as the dangers of explosives are sufficient to outweigh any liberty interest or the rare occasion when one might have a legitimate reason for explosives (aside from licensed use by professionals).
The first question one must ask is exactly how you propose to get criminals to hand in their illegal guns? Or will this be yet another law that will apply to normally law abiding citizens?
Second question: Will there be compensation for the confiscation of previously legal private property? If so who pays?
Second question: Will there be compensation for the confiscation of previously legal private property? If so who pays?
Exactly. This is one thread that has run its course about 10 times over and someone should kill it.
The problem with your ideas lies in the second sentence above; " The other "militia" purposes have been taken over by police and military (which did not exist in 1787).........."
You can not offer a deterrent to tyranny by arming the minions of the state...........the police and the military are the very organizations the people are armed to resist.
And that also requires arms specifically built for fighting.
It is my belief that the Second Amendment entitles the citizen to keep and bear weapons roughly equivalent to the personal arms carried by the police and military.....the semi-auto AR 15 being the perfect example of that type of weapon.
Well, that's at least honest!! So many claim to "...support the Second Amendment", while pissing all over it. The simple fact is that tough gun control in the USA requires the repeal of the Second Amendment....as to that GOOD LUCK, you'll need it.
As for the idea that the Second Amendment allows for much stricter laws than now exist, I would argue that depends on where you live. As I discussed above, the Second (IMHO) allows the relatively easy ownership of weapons built for fighting, the AR 15 with large capacity magazines being the ultimate example. Any law that outright prohibits either is blatantly unconstitutional on the face of it.
I object to the idea that gun control can be anymore effective than prohibition was at making society a better place.
How funny. Do you really believe I don't look at facts. I quickly rejected that survey because it was done on small arms in 2007 of privately owned small arms by civilians which reported was between 270 million and 310 million......Where are estimates on the illicit guns? or the rifles, shotguns, etc. How about the weapons stockpiled by dealers and the military??
I also found on one gun facts page that it is estimated that every year 10 million guns are added to that wiki total every year. Also, that 90.0 per hundred does not take into consideration the underage children or babies, the hospitalized, senile or mentally challenged people, included in the population amount percentage. There are so many different surveys done more recently, and with better parameters that support my "facts" so much better than they do yours.
What a ridiculous reply. Of course I cherry pick. What is the point of a survey, if 1/2 the facts are ignored or not taken into account. How does something become a truth??, certainly not by ignoring 3/4 of the actual facts.
Bluebyrd- Your obsession appears to be with GUNS. I would have thought by now you would realize guns are not the problem.............criminals and crackpots are.
