Jump to content
1911fan

Do you support gun control?

Recommended Posts

http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-...-radio-podcast/

 

Among other things, if you have a gun in the US, you are roughly twice as likely to use it to commit suicide than to use it commit homicide.

 

Historically gun control in the united states has had no measurable effect on reducing gun crimes. Presumably because of the simple principle that there is already a great number of guns out there (we have more guns in the US than population) and the criminals get their guns either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-...-radio-podcast/

 

Among other things, if you have a gun in the US, you are roughly twice as likely to use it to commit suicide than to use it commit homicide.

 

Historically gun control in the united states has had no measurable effect on reducing gun crimes. Presumably because of the simple principle that there is already a great number of guns out there (we have more guns in the US than population) and the criminals get their guns either way.

 

That last part is what I said. You cannot take the guns off of the streets. There's too many. Not everyone is a psychopath. But a fair amount of people are suicidal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That last part is what I said. You cannot take the guns off of the streets. There's too many. Not everyone is a psychopath. But a fair amount of people are suicidal.

Yeah the main point is that gun violence in the US is a unique problem (precisely because there are so many guns out there). Laws, Campaigns, and Trends that may or may not have had an effect in other modern countries don't get the same results in the US.

 

There are other reasons in play too, but that is the main one. If we want to be solution based, we have to keep these things in the forefront of our mind.

 

It's the mass shootings that draw the news coverage and draw the largest urge to legislate. And while they are tragic, these mass shootings are but a very small portion in terms of numbers of overall gun homicides.

 

Suicide is a taboo in the west, so no one likes to hear about it, discuss it, or do much about it (for the most part). Except for those who have been affected by it. Yet suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people age 15-24, and it continues to rise in modern times (over 30% among certain demographics in the last decade).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That wasn't naive. I just agree with the guy. Gun control is one of the stupidest ideas ever. "Guns kill people!" No they don't. Do spoons make people fat? Do pencils misspell words? Nope. They don't. That's why the idea of gun control is idiotic.

 

You're continuing to be naive here because you're failing to see any relationship between people and guns. Of course the gun is inanimate, but people aren't. And peoples' behavior changes with access to guns.

 

Let's adjust your analogies to be realistic: if food portions were heavily regulated or hard to come by, people would not be as fat (see: lack of obese people in countries without an adequate food supply). If computers, typewriters, pencils, pens, and writing utensils were heavily regulated and only issued to those who have a track record for good spelling, then of all words written in the world, there would be fewer spelling mistakes.

 

We can even look at our own country for examples of gun control achieving what it set out to do: There have been relatively few cases of shootings with fully automatic firearms. Why might that be? Perhaps because they're so hard to get ahold of, that they're prohibitively expensive to purchase legally (for your average criminal), and, as a corollary, there are fewer of them in the hands of criminals.

 

This dense, plug-your-ears-shouting-nananana-type reasoning is a big part of why few people can have a reasonable discussion about gun control. Peoples' behavior changes with the resources available to them. Once you accept that fact, you will see why your reasoning is so naive.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? The US government would have even more problems dealing with local renegades than in afghanistan.

 

Even stronger unwillingness to harm the public to get at the rebels. The rebels would have access to better equipment, and more of it. And that doesn't even touch on the morale issues of sending soldiers sworn to defend the people against the people.

 

Frankly, I suspect the first politician stupid enough to try and enforce such a law is likely to get literally thrown out of the building by his own generals.

 

Why assume that rebels here would have access to better equipment? "If" the government were to fight against it's own people, the people simply wouldn't stand a chance. The 2nd Amendment was written when the states were coming together for the first time. Risk of invasion was high. Risk of a failure in the new government was high. Risk of a civil war was high. It made more sense that people should have been concerned. The country has changed since then.

 

Now, I would like to clarify that I do believe people should be able to own guns. Go hunting? Sure. Feel a little more comfortable with a pistol in your nightstand (Secured, of course)? Sure. But of course, this must be in moderation, as it must be with everything else. There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to high capacity magazines, or concealed weapons.

 

Is it not hard to ignore that the country with the most guns per capita is the one with the most gun-related crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why assume that rebels here would have access to better equipment? "If" the government were to fight against it's own people, the people simply wouldn't stand a chance. The 2nd Amendment was written when the states were coming together for the first time. Risk of invasion was high. Risk of a failure in the new government was high. Risk of a civil war was high. It made more sense that people should have been concerned. The country has changed since then.

 

Is it not hard to ignore that the country with the most guns per capita is the one with the most gun-related crimes?

Because they already do have access to better equipment? Hell, my father is better equipped in that sense than most of the fighters we're having trouble with over in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we're just talking a rifle and pistol here, not assault weapons, nor some huge stockpile of the standard guns.

 

If the government honestly became corrupt and insane enough to use the military against its own people, and if they via some miracle avoided a huge portion of the military choosing to uphold their oaths and instead just follow orders, and if said government chose to just flatten everything rather than taking care to avoid killing noncombatants and destroying infrastructure. Then sure, the people wouldn't stand a chance, but that's a lot of ifs.

 

The first condition might be possible. The second condition is entirely impossible short of some kind of widespread mind control in use on the soldier (the vast majority of soldiers are FAR more likely to shoot the man who gave them such an order than follow it) The last condition would be akin to slitting your own throat to remove an object you're choking on. So no, not going to happen.

 

If such a war broke out, and if those initiating it held control of enough of the military to avoid being immediately flattened instead, it would very quickly become a slugfest where the government quickly finds out that it is largely helpless to strike at the rebels in any significant manner, who in turn have zilch issue cutting the government off from all supply lines.

 

P.S. It is indeed easy to ignore, largely because it is not remotely true. That particular distinction goes to the Honduras, who get a whopping 70 firearm related homicides per 100,000 people, in spite of only having 6 firearms per 100 people. This would be compared to the United States' 2.8 per 100,000 firearm homicides and 88 per 100 firearms. Frankly, the number of firearms in a region seems to have almost no impact whatsoever on crime rates, with economic and social factors being the only reliable variables for predicting crime. This holds true even within the US. Multiple regions with lax gun laws and plenty of guns have high gun related crime rates. Many others have far less than certain regions with extremely strict gun control.

Edited by Daishain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they already do have access to better equipment? Hell, my father is better equipped in that sense than most of the fighters we're having trouble with over in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we're just talking a rifle and pistol here, not assault weapons, nor some huge stockpile of the standard guns.

 

If the government honestly became corrupt and insane enough to use the military against its own people, and if they via some miracle avoided a huge portion of the military choosing to uphold their oaths and instead just follow orders, and if said government chose to just flatten everything rather than taking care to avoid killing noncombatants and destroying infrastructure. Then sure, the people wouldn't stand a chance, but that's a lot of ifs.

 

The first condition might be possible. The second condition is entirely impossible short of some kind of widespread mind control in use on the soldier (the vast majority of soldiers are FAR more likely to shoot the man who gave them such an order than follow it) The last condition would be akin to slitting your own throat to remove an object you're choking on. So no, not going to happen.

 

If such a war broke out, and if those initiating it held control of enough of the military to avoid being immediately flattened instead, it would very quickly become a slugfest where the government quickly finds out that it is largely helpless to strike at the rebels in any significant manner, who in turn have zilch issue cutting the government off from all supply lines.

 

P.S. It is indeed easy to ignore, largely because it is not remotely true. That particular distinction goes to the Honduras, who get a whopping 70 firearm related homicides per 100,000 people, in spite of only having 6 firearms per 100 people. This would be compared to the United States' 2.8 per 100,000 firearm homicides and 88 per 100 firearms. Frankly, the number of firearms in a region seems to have almost no impact whatsoever on crime rates, with economic and social factors being the only reliable variables for predicting crime. This holds true even within the US. Multiple regions with lax gun laws and plenty of guns have high gun related crime rates. Many others have far less than certain regions with extremely strict gun control.

 

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that a war between militias and the government is totally ridiculous and implausible. That was never part of my argument. I am saying that any gun that is legal now will help you in said implausible conflict. I still don't know that people here have more access to such equipment, but I think we've actually agreed that the argument is irrelevant.

 

And I should have clarified, my apologies. I meant to say first world countries (The U.S. does lead the first world countries in firearm-related death rate), where economic and social factors aren't as likely to cause such violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that a war between militias and the government is totally ridiculous and implausible. That was never part of my argument. I am saying that any gun that is legal now will help you in said implausible conflict. I still don't know that people here have more access to such equipment, but I think we've actually agreed that the argument is irrelevant.

 

And I should have clarified, my apologies. I meant to say first world countries (The U.S. does lead the first world countries in firearm-related death rate), where economic and social factors aren't as likely to cause such violence.

If you limit it to first world countries, what you say is technically accurate, but misleading.

 

Why? Over two thirds of the firearm related deaths in the US are suicides, not murders. This ratio is fairly high among first world countries, leading to a fair amount of bias if one fails to take it into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you limit it to first world countries, what you say is technically accurate, but misleading.

 

Why? Over two thirds of the firearm related deaths in the US are suicides, not murders. This ratio is fairly high among first world countries, leading to a fair amount of bias if one fails to take it into account.

 

I've heard slightly lower statistics than that, usually around %50-%60. Regardless, US Still leads the way in first-world homicides per capita rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can even look at our own country for examples of gun control achieving what it set out to do: There have been relatively few cases of shootings with fully automatic firearms. Why might that be? Perhaps because they're so hard to get ahold of, that they're prohibitively expensive to purchase legally (for your average criminal), and, as a corollary, there are fewer of them in the hands of criminals.

 

Actually, that's a bad example. AR-15's, AK-47's, and even long barrel subguns like a 16inch barrel MP5 are all easy to purchase. Combined with all other long rifles they amount to roughly 300-360 deaths a year. You have a greater chance of being killed by a hammer or knife.

 

For 2012 (lowest homicide rates): [Rifles- 322] [Knives- 1749] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 518]

For 2008 (highest homicide rates): [Rifles- 380] [Knives- 1888] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 603]

 

Handguns are the biggest threats as they're more compact for criminals to carry concealed. This is ironic as rifles have must more destructive power than handguns but are less harmful than influenza (500 deaths 2012). In fact, scary rifles are only 2.5x more likely to kill you than falling off of a step ladder (113 fatalities in 2012).

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...n_2008-2012.xls

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...ndedoffensemain

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm

 

I've heard slightly lower statistics than that, usually around %50-%60. Regardless, US Still leads the way in first-world homicides per capita rate.

 

Suicide by firearm discharge total: 19,392

Assault (homicide) by firearm discharge: 11,078

 

Yup almost two thirds.

pg 40.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

 

We lead the way in homicide by firearms. Everyone else commits suicide by slower, more painful, and messy means.

 

ZXfnUrP.jpg

Edited by Brainplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, that's a bad example. AR-15's, AK-47's, and even long barrel subguns like a 16inch barrel MP5 are all easy to purchase. Combined with all other long rifles they amount to roughly 300-360 deaths a year. You have a greater chance of being killed by a hammer or knife.

 

For 2012 (lowest homicide rates): [Rifles- 322] [Knives- 1749] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 518]

For 2008 (highest homicide rates): [Rifles- 380] [Knives- 1888] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 603]

 

Handguns are the biggest threats as they're more compact for criminals to carry concealed. This is ironic as rifles have must more destructive power than handguns but are less harmful than influenza (500 deaths 2012). In fact, scary rifles are only 2.5x more likely to kill you than falling off of a step ladder (113 fatalities in 2012).

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...n_2008-2012.xls

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...ndedoffensemain

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm

 

Thanks for providing citations for your claims, but note that I specifically mentioned "fully automatic." ARs and AKs are easy to purchase as long as you're going for semi automatic only. MP5s (even semi automatic ones) are actually quite expensive, even if you're building one from a kit. Fully automatic firearms are generally just prohibitively expensive ($10k+) due to the 1986 machine gun ban. Also, "fully automatic firearms" encompasses more than rifles- that includes machine pistols and other sub guns as well. If not for the '86 ban, things like Uzis would be quite cheap, and almost certainly more widespread, which results in more criminals acquiring them (either through legal purchase [or straw purchases], or theft).

 

Point being, fully automatic stuff is hard to get because it is tightly regulated. Gun control can work depending on its implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, that's a bad example. AR-15's, AK-47's, and even long barrel subguns like a 16inch barrel MP5 are all easy to purchase. Combined with all other long rifles they amount to roughly 300-360 deaths a year. You have a greater chance of being killed by a hammer or knife.

 

For 2012 (lowest homicide rates): [Rifles- 322] [Knives- 1749] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 518]

For 2008 (highest homicide rates): [Rifles- 380] [Knives- 1888] [blunt object (includes hammers and clubs)- 603]

 

Handguns are the biggest threats as they're more compact for criminals to carry concealed. This is ironic as rifles have must more destructive power than handguns but are less harmful than influenza (500 deaths 2012). In fact, scary rifles are only 2.5x more likely to kill you than falling off of a step ladder (113 fatalities in 2012).

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...n_2008-2012.xls

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...ndedoffensemain

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm

 

 

 

Suicide by firearm discharge total: 19,392

Assault (homicide) by firearm discharge: 11,078

 

Yup almost two thirds.

pg 40.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

 

We lead the way in homicide by firearms. Everyone else commits suicide by slower, more painful, and messy means.

 

ZXfnUrP.jpg

 

 

True statement. People usually aren't using AR-15s to commit suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point being, fully automatic stuff is hard to get because it is tightly regulated. Gun control can work depending on its implementation.

It can, but it wouldn't work here. With fully automatic firearms, it's taken more than a generation to get there. People want short term solutions. They don't want to have to wait ~30 years for the effects to be felt.

 

Likewise keeping the law passed and on the books for that long would be a huge challenge in the modern political environment. In the US, gun control is just a solution in search of a problem.

 

If you want a good example of gun control just not working, look at Mexico. Some of the efforts tried here in the US have been misguided at best, hurtful at worst. For instance the different 'gun buyback' programs where people can turn in guns to the government for a wallmart gift card (typically $100 to $200 depending on the type of gun). What the official didn't realize was that people were turning in nonfunctional guns and were using the gift cards to buy new, functioning guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can, but it wouldn't work here. With fully automatic firearms, it's taken more than a generation to get there. People want short term solutions. They don't want to have to wait ~30 years for the effects to be felt.

 

Likewise keeping the law passed and on the books for that long would be a huge challenge in the modern political environment. In the US, gun control is just a solution in search of a problem.

 

If you want a good example of gun control just not working, look at Mexico. Some of the efforts tried here in the US have been misguided at best, hurtful at worst. For instance the different 'gun buyback' programs where people can turn in guns to the government for a wallmart gift card (typically $100 to $200 depending on the type of gun). What the official didn't realize was that people were turning in nonfunctional guns and were using the gift cards to buy new, functioning guns.

 

Mexico isn't the best example considering the US federal government was selling assault rifles to the cartels. Or maybe that does make it a good example!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mexico isn't the best example considering the US federal government was selling assault rifles to the cartels. Or maybe that does make it a good example!

Mexico is a good example on several levels, you mentioned one above.

But the main lesson from Mexico is that gun control is only a very small part of gun violence.

 

If the criminals want guns, they can get guns. And they will. More Police on the Streets, More Prisons (and longer sentencing), Law and Order, Anti-Corruption, Anti-Poverty, Demographics, etc. All these things make far more difference than any kind of gun control or gun prohibition laws.

 

Speaking of prohibition it's been shown that at first, it had a somewhat negative effect on alcohol consumption. But after several years, alcohol consumption rose to the point where it actually surpassed pre-prohibition levels by over 50%.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20910859

 

In the end the popular media or popular culture depictions of homicide do not match up with the reality of homicide or police / detective work in general for that matter. Even fictional accounts like Midsomer County where guns are not common, if people want to kill each other, they'll find a way.

 

http://midsomermurders.org/bodycount2.htm

Edited by Shutaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can, but it wouldn't work here. With fully automatic firearms, it's taken more than a generation to get there. People want short term solutions. They don't want to have to wait ~30 years for the effects to be felt.

 

"It wouldn't work" is a very different claim from "it would take a long time to work."

 

Likewise keeping the law passed and on the books for that long would be a huge challenge in the modern political environment.

 

Laws are rarely repealed these days.

 

In the US, gun control is just a solution in search of a problem.

 

Maybe, but that's independent of whether or not gun control can achieve what it sets out to do.

 

If you want a good example of gun control just not working, look at Mexico. Some of the efforts tried here in the US have been misguided at best, hurtful at worst. For instance the different 'gun buyback' programs where people can turn in guns to the government for a wallmart gift card (typically $100 to $200 depending on the type of gun). What the official didn't realize was that people were turning in nonfunctional guns and were using the gift cards to buy new, functioning guns.

 

So, saying "x doesn't work because Mexico can't make it work" is a bit of a meaningless claim. They can hardly do anything right.

 

Edit- To address your other post:

 

Mexico is a good example on several levels, you mentioned one above.

But the main lesson from Mexico is that gun control is only a very small part of gun violence.

 

If the criminals want guns, they can get guns. And they will. More Police on the Streets, More Prisons (and longer sentencing), Law and Order, Anti-Corruption, Anti-Poverty, Demographics, etc. All these things make far more difference than any kind of gun control or gun prohibition laws.

 

As I said, gun control can be effective depending on its implementation. If all you do is pass a law saying "it's illegal to own guns," of course that won't work- especially if your police are as corrupt as Mexico's. But this doesn't mean the gun control doesn't work, it means that law doesn't work unless you can enforce it- and can do so reasonably. Also, keep in mind how unfair it is to judge gun control based on whether or not "someone can find a way" to get a gun. I don't know any gun control advocates who have that expectation. The goal is to make it harder and/or more costly to acquire guns, resulting in fewer being used. It's not that outlandish.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Criminals can still find ways to get around that.

 

*Sigh*

 

Did you read the two sentences before that one?

 

It's disingenuous to judge gun control on a "pass or fail" basis. Just because a criminal can get a gun doesn't mean the opportunity cost is low enough that they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, gun control can be effective depending on its implementation. If all you do is pass a law saying "it's illegal to own guns," of course that won't work- especially if your police are as corrupt as Mexico's. But this doesn't mean the gun control doesn't work, it means that law doesn't work unless you can enforce it- and can do so reasonably.

That's kinda like saying, using your forehead to pound in a nail can be effective, depending on the implementation. Sure it might be effective in pounding in that nail, but you might also end up with a hole in your head in the process. You might as well use a hammer instead. It makes more sense.

 

If you had to take a math test and the teacher gave you a choice of using a slide rule or a calculator (both work) which would you choose? To add to this, let's say the test is timed.

 

What is reason? That is decided by what the common person thinks. When you go against the common person, all bets are off.

 

One other thing to add. From an economist's standpoint, look at something like the recent spike (and cooling off) in ammo prices recently. In many cases, a higher price creates more incentive to produce and sell, which ultimately increases the supply over the long term rather than decreasing it.

 

This is why even toying with the idea of legislation is dangerous, especially if you ultimately won't be able to pass the legislation. Because the perceived threat of legislation (not legislation itself) is what drives up the price. You might reason this as "good" in the short term, but look at the long term effects.

 

The price goes up in the short term, and the incentive for suppliers to produce more ammo or procure additional sources of ammo increases. In the end, more ammo is produced, and sold, ultimately leading to more ammo out there than you had before. And once the supply of ammo being produced exceeds the demand (as the threat of legislation abates) there is a glut of ammo on the market and the price takes a dive.

 

In other words, in the long term, threatening legislation just makes things worse (especially if the legislation is never actually passed).

Edited by Shutaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kinda like saying, using your forehead to pound in a nail can be effective, depending on the implementation. Sure it might be effective in pounding in that nail, but you might also end up with a hole in your head in the process. You might as well use a hammer instead. It makes more sense.

 

I don't see how that analogy makes sense in regard to what I was saying. If you want to make a nail-pounding analogy to what I'm saying, then it would be more like: You don't build a deck using a single nail in every board- you have to ensure that you're not neglecting the actual plans for the deck and that you're using enough nails in strategic places for it to work.. It's not that the nail is inadequate for the job, it's that the nail has to work in conjunction with other nails in order to achieve its goal.

 

If you had to take a math test and the teacher gave you a choice of using a slide rule or a calculator (both work) which would you choose? To add to this, let's say the test is timed.

 

Again, this is an inaccurate analogy for what I was saying.

 

One other thing to add. From an economist's standpoint, look at something like the recent spike (and cooling off) in ammo prices recently. In many cases, a higher price creates more incentive to produce and sell, which ultimately increases the supply over the long term rather than decreasing it.

 

The big assumption you're making: that the manufacturing of ammo (and/or firearms) would be unregulated (or, at least, far less regulated than firearm purchasing). The ammo and firearm market isn't exactly booming in Europe.

 

This is why even toying with the idea of legislation is dangerous, especially if you ultimately won't be able to pass the legislation. Because the perceived threat of legislation (not legislation itself) is what drives up the price. You might reason this as "good" in the short term, but look at the long term effects.

 

Sure, I agree. An effective implementation of gun control would be very difficult in the US.

 

The price goes up in the short term, and the incentive for suppliers to produce more ammo or procure additional sources of ammo increases. In the end, more ammo is produced, and sold, ultimately leading to more ammo out there than you had before. And once the supply of ammo being produced exceeds the demand (as the threat of legislation abates) there is a glut of ammo on the market and the price takes a dive.

 

In other words, in the long term, threatening legislation just makes things worse (especially if the legislation is never actually passed).

 

Potentially, again assuming you neglect manufacturing. Really, that's where it would have to start (as was the case with the '86 ban).

 

Who said criminals get their guns legally?

 

By proxy, they generally do. Straw purchases, theft, and legal purchases account for the vast majority of the illegal guns in the US. The other big player in illegal guns is corrupt FFLs. Very few guns in the US are illegally imported or illegally manufactured.

 

If you make it harder to get legal guns (generally through reducing supply), and you can recognize that an overwhelming majority of illegal guns begin as legal guns, then a corollary is that there will be fewer illegal guns. It's not a complicated concept. But again, if you only enforce at the last level (such as at point-of-sale) and neglect the entire firearm industry this country has, of course your legislation wouldn't work.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you make it harder to get legal guns (generally through reducing supply), and you can recognize that an overwhelming majority of illegal guns begin as legal guns, then a corollary is that there will be fewer illegal guns. It's not a complicated concept. But again, if you only enforce at the last level (such as at point-of-sale) and neglect the entire firearm industry this country has, of course your legislation wouldn't work.

Reducing the supply generally increases the demand, therefore people (especially criminals) are more likely to acquire their firearms unlawfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how that analogy makes sense in regard to what I was saying. If you want to make a nail-pounding analogy to what I'm saying, then it would be more like: You don't build a deck using a single

The point of the analogy is that 1) In trying to accomplish something, you should consider all possible courses of action on their merits and choose the best one(s) after careful consideration, and 2) you should be aware of possible undesired effects of actions and factor them into your thinking about what is the best course of action. Rather than simply jumping at the first thing that comes to mind. My point of my analogies is that 1) There are better tools available (a hammer rather than your forehead) and 2) Your "solution" would take far too long, with people being killed in the meantime. So I don't think it's an inaccurate set of analogies at all.

 

The big assumption you're making: that the manufacturing of ammo (and/or firearms) would be unregulated (or, at least, far less regulated than firearm purchasing). The ammo and firearm market isn't exactly booming in Europe.

...

Sure, I agree. An effective implementation of gun control would be very difficult in the US.

And this is the crux of my second argument against legislation. Ultimately, no one (even the proponents) expects legislation to pass. So they are just making the problem worse by threatening it. In the end they've just added to the supply of guns and ammo out there.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+sales+s...645&bih=892

Edited by Shutaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reducing the supply generally increases the demand, therefore people (especially criminals) are more likely to acquire their firearms unlawfully.

 

The part you're missing is that a corollary of increased demand is increased prices. Case in point, full auto ARs are generally $10k+. You could steal one if you really wanted to, but again, the opportunity cost is high, even for criminals. Sure, it may still be possible to get one- but a lower supply results in less people doing so. If the US banned manufacture and import of pistols tomorrow, over time, the supply would dry up and they would be prohibitively expensive- for both ordinary citizens and for criminals. That's just how it works.

 

The point of the analogy is that 1) In trying tMyaccomplish something, you should consider all possible courses of action on their merits and choose the best one(s) after careful consideration, and 2) you should be aware of possible undesired effects of actions and factor them into your thinking about what is the best course of action. Rather than simply jumping at the first thing that comes to mind.

 

I've given a solid example of where the US has implemented successful gun control- the '86 MG ban. What undesired effects are you referring to?

 

My point of my analogies is that 1) There are better tools available (a hammer rather than your forehead)

 

This isn't a zero sum game- of the "better tools" you referred to (decreasing poverty, corruption, increasing law enforcement), not one of them would make additional gun control less effective. Gun control would simply be more effective if combined with those other tools. It's nowhere near the same as using your head to pound in a nail.

 

and 2) Your "solution" would take far too long, with people being killed in the meantime. So I don't think it's an inaccurate set of analogies at all.

 

It's not my solution- I am not a gun control advocate. I'm simply making a point that the anti-gun-control rhetoric of "Gun control doesn't work because guns don't kill people!" is incredibly naive and short-sighted. Gun control can work, and the fact that guns are inanimate has no influence on that at all.

 

An argument of "should we tighten gun control?" or "is it legal to tighten gun control?" is independent of my point. As much as I dislike ignorant anti-gun arguments, I tend to dislike ignorant pro-gun arguments even more.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The part you're missing is that a corollary of increased demand is increased prices. Case in point, full auto ARs are generally $10k+. You could steal one if you really wanted to, but again, the opportunity cost is high, even for criminals.

I like how you quoted me for every single quote in your post. And while a fully automatic firearm is pricey, what's stopping a criminal from modifying a perfectly legal rifle to fire full auto?

Edited by B.A.M.F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how you quoted me for every single quote in your post.

 

Fixed.

 

And while a fully automatic firearm is pricey, what's stopping a criminal from modifying a perfectly legal rifle to fire full auto?

 

Knowledge and skill. But that seems to be enough, since criminals rarely modify firearms to be full auto. And the success barrier for manufacturing an entire firearm is much higher.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've given a solid example of where the US has implemented successful gun control- the '86 MG ban. What undesired effects are you referring to?

In reality this was a small part of a larger bill that rolled back a lot of other gun control legislation. This is why the firearms lobby supported it and pressured congress to pass it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

The machine gun ban was an amendment tacked on to the law at the last minute, and ended up being an anomaly since there was a rather limited number of machine guns out there to begin with.

 

This isn't a zero sum game- of the "better tools" you referred to (decreasing poverty, corruption, increasing law enforcement), not one of them would make additional gun control less effective. Gun control would simply be more effective if combined with those other tools. It's nowhere near the same as using your head to pound in a nail.

Honestly the thinking is overly simplistic. Always think two to three steps ahead, not just one.

 

There's a lot of guns out there, so no matter how effective the legislation, it would take a generation at least to be effective. Probably two or more. And what do you think would happen in that generation or two?

 

The more guns you take away, the greater the incentive to own and use a gun, especially for a criminal.

 

An argument of "should we tighten gun control?" or "is it legal to tighten gun control?" is independent of my point. As much as I dislike ignorant anti-gun arguments, I tend to dislike ignorant pro-gun arguments even more.

I honestly don't like or dislike either side, I'm just a realist.

ECCL3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In reality this was a small part of a larger bill that rolled back a lot of other gun control legislation. This is why the firearms lobby supported it and pressured congress to pass it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

The machine gun ban was an amendment tacked on to the law at the last minute, and ended up being an anomaly since there was a rather limited number of machine guns out there to begin with.

 

I'm familiar with the law, but what undesired effects were you talking about?

 

Honestly the thinking is overly simplistic. Always think two to three steps ahead, not just one.

 

Odd that you say this, because in the next sentence you criticize gun control for only being effective in the long-term. I would say that it is thinking two to three steps ahead.

 

There's a lot of guns out there, so no matter how effective the legislation, it would take a generation at least to be effective. Probably two or more. And what do you think would happen in that generation or two?

 

As I said earlier, "It wouldn't work" is a very different claim from "It would take a long time to work."

 

The more guns you take away, the greater the incentive to own and use a gun, especially for a criminal.

 

Arguable- combine steeper penalties with gun control, and you get greater incentive to avoid firearms.

 

But regardless- the more guns you take away, the higher the cost of a firearm becomes- both in terms of money and opportunity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said criminals get their guns legally?

 

Exactly. People will steal them, or get them in other ways that are illegal. I can't remember what it's called, but they buy it illegally. My grandparents house got broken into recently, and they lost a lot of things. The guns weren't stolen probably because they were protected in some way. (I didn't hear the whole story.) I know that last part was slightly off topic, I'm just saying that people have ways of getting things they want without paying for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm familiar with the law, but what undesired effects were you talking about?

 

Odd that you say this, because in the next sentence you criticize gun control for only being effective in the long-term. I would say that it is thinking two to three steps ahead.

The caveat is that if you don't survive the first step, the second and third step don't matter.

 

The undesirable effects could be any number of things. It's hard to say. But they are often worse than the law itself.

 

ie. You end up creating a new class of weapon that is even more dangerous than firearms.

 

What do you think will happen in the next 50 years? What new technologies will be weaponized? Robots? 3D printers? Drones? New materials and chemical engineering?

 

Or like prohibition the law backfires and seven years later, guns are even more common and there are even more guns out there. And the state is stuck between a rock and a hard place, either round up the violators and throw them in jail, or back off.

 

As I said earlier, "It wouldn't work" is a very different claim from "It would take a long time to work."

The reality is it wouldn't work because it would take too long. It would likely fail in implementation, and it would certainly be repealed before that one or two generations it would take to have an effect.

Edited by Shutaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. People will steal them, or get them in other ways that are illegal. I can't remember what it's called, but they buy it illegally. My grandparents house got broken into recently, and they lost a lot of things. The guns weren't stolen probably because they were protected in some way. (I didn't hear the whole story.) I know that last part was slightly off topic, I'm just saying that people have ways of getting things they want without paying for them.

 

I don't think you're understanding the concept by any means, so I'm going to put some numbers to it to make this as simple to understand as possible.

 

Let's say that right now, there are 500 guns, relatively evenly distributed among 1000 people. If you're a criminal and you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 5 guns (on average). You sell these guns, and like a reasonable person, you sell them based on the risk required to get them. Let's say you associate a risk of $100 per house, and you therefore sell the guns at $200 each because you had to break into 2 houses per gun. Your criminal friend has $400 to spend on guns, so he is able to buy 2.

 

Now let's look at the same situation, except there are 200 guns distributed among 1000 people. If you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 2 guns on average. You still have the same risk for breaking into a house. But at a risk of $100 per house, you had to break into 5 houses per gun. So you sell each gun at $500. Your friend therefore can't even afford 1 gun- he has to really decide if the gun is worth it, and if he does and spends extra money, he is only able to buy 1.

 

This is an insanely simplistic demonstration, but this is how economics works in general. The smaller pool of guns available results in more inconvenience for gun thieves. They need to sell the guns for a higher price to account for the fact that they're harder to get. Yes, your criminals can still get guns- and they may be able to introduce another source. But either way it will drive the price up in the illegal arms market, resulting in fewer guns in that market. The other key point is that all of these stolen guns start out as legally purchased guns- So with less legally purchased guns, you affect the illegal arms market.

 

To those of you not TacticalAK47 (especially Shutaro): You and I know this isn't anywhere near an accurate picture of reality, so please don't bother noting its pitfalls. I'm just trying to relay a very general idea to TacticalAK47 because I think he honestly doesn't understand the economics behind it.

 

 

The caveat is that if you don't survive the first step, the second and third step don't matter.

 

The undesirable effects could be any number of things. It's hard to say. But they are often worse than the law itself.

 

ie. You end up creating a new class of weapon that is even more dangerous than firearms.

 

This is akin to saying "We shouldn't prevent countries from having nuclear weapons, because it might drive them to create something even more devastating." The problem with that statement is, obviously, that nothing is stopping you from regulating whatever comes next. You could apply the same laws to ray guns as you could to firearms.

 

Also, nobody said the first step has to be drastic. It could be gradual, as it has been over the past century.

 

Or like prohibition the law backfires and seven years later, guns are even more common and there are even more guns out there. And the state is stuck between a rock and a hard place, either round up the violators and throw them in jail, or back off.

 

Prohibition would be a good argument for why you wouldn't want to pass a law tomorrow that says "Nobody can own any guns ever again, and by the way, the ones you own right now are illegal."

 

The reality is it wouldn't work because it would take too long. It would likely fail in implementation, and it would certainly be repealed before that one or two generations it would take to have an effect.

 

This isn't really an argument to say that gun control wouldn't work, it's to say that people wouldn't support it. This is a completely different argument. Just because the current political climate in the US doesn't support universal health care doesn't mean that UHC doesn't work based on some overly simplified principle- it does work. There are plenty of countries that show this. Whether or not it's easy to implement in the US is another story altogether. Same with gun control- Europe is ripe with examples of gun control working reasonably well. Gun control isn't inherently flawed because "people will always kill people" or "guns don't kill people" or some other naive reasoning.

 

I completely agree that gun control is impractical, unlikely to pass in an effective form, meets diminishing returns before achieving satisfactory results, and on and on and on. I don't support gun control. But to say "gun control is stupid because people will always kill people and guns are inanimate" is entirely naive, and that's the argument I take issue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't understand all of the economics behind it. I just have common sense and my own opinion. If gun control ever passed, it would make it hard for people to get guns. People will still find ways to get a hold of guns. The stupid law would just be a nuisance to everybody. Nobody would care or follow the law, so what's the point? I've already said like many others that gun control won't take guns off the streets. It's a waste of time to even try to pass gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't understand all of the economics behind it. I just have common sense and my own opinion. If gun control ever passed, it would make it hard for people to get guns. People will still find ways to get a hold of guns. The stupid law would just be a nuisance to everybody. Nobody would care or follow the law, so what's the point? I've already said like many others that gun control won't take guns off the streets. It's a waste of time to even try to pass gun control.

 

Sorta related, if the government passed a bill to come and take peoples guns away, there would be a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't understand all of the economics behind it. I just have common sense and my own opinion. If gun control ever passed, it would make it hard for people to get guns. People will still find ways to get a hold of guns. The stupid law would just be a nuisance to everybody. Nobody would care or follow the law, so what's the point? I've already said like many others that gun control won't take guns off the streets. It's a waste of time to even try to pass gun control.

 

One day I hope you learn to think critically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorta related, if the government passed a bill to come and take peoples guns away, there would be a civil war.

 

Exactly. People who own guns, think how pissed you would be if Obama said you couldn't have guns. Then imagine the psychopaths (we all know that they're out there) getting mad about it. It could be apocalyptic. I don't need to know economics to have common sense.

 

 

Also, Python890, this isn't an insult but I've noticed that you slam everything I say ever since you saw some of my posts on "Opinions on gay marriage".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. People who own guns, think how pissed you would be if Obama said you couldn't have guns. Then imagine the psychopaths (we all know that they're out there) getting mad about it. It could be apocalyptic. I don't need to know economics to have common sense.

 

 

Also, Python890, this isn't an insult but I've noticed that you slam everything I say ever since you saw some of my posts on "Opinions on gay marriage".

 

Gun control isn't necessarily a gun ban.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. People who own guns, think how pissed you would be if Obama said you couldn't have guns. Then imagine the psychopaths (we all know that they're out there) getting mad about it. It could be apocalyptic.

 

I don't think you're reading (or understanding) my posts.

 

I don't need to know economics to have common sense.

 

It's interesting to me that you dismiss things you don't understand because you're so confident in your intuition.

 

I generally recommend understanding both ideas before proclaiming one as more correct than the other.

 

Also, Python890, this isn't an insult but I've noticed that you slam everything I say ever since you saw some of my posts on "Opinions on gay marriage".

 

I'm not that petty. I argue with points that are either poorly supported or wrongfully supported, regardless of the my personal opinion on the matter. It just turns out that you're spectacularly bad at supporting your points (and also at understanding mine).

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a video by DevilDogGamer about it, and he made a good point that you can do much more with a hunting rifle than an AR-15, especially in the case of armed bystanders. Higher range, more damage(he tells a story of Iraq where a guy got shot with 9 5.56s and got up and ran) and it's easy to stay hidden where people don't know where it's coming from. An assault weapons ban is a kneejerk reaction to a scare and regardless like other people have said, evil finds a way - without assault rifles, or without guns in the first place, it's a people problem not a weapon problem. And all a gun ban does is take the guns from the people who can best deal with the situation: the ones who are right there and know how to defend themselves and others. There are so many ways around bans and regulations to illegaly acquire guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...