The Cost of America's Gun Addiction

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Take away all the spoons, people will still eat.
Take away all the guns, people will still be violent.

True dat. The thing about guns is that they make it so much more painless for many people to be violent. No need to actually bash a head in, or get close enough to be in any danger.

Quote

Besides, it has been proven that you cannot take away all of anything.

Also true. Of course, does that mean that we should just blow off outlawing crime because we can't eliminate it?

I'm not against the second amendment. I'm against sound-bite arguments.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Thank you Wendy, I have been trying to get the same across for a long time, you do it alot more eloquent.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The thing about guns is that they make it so much more painless for many people to be violent.

You have been violent with and without a firearm? If not, then aren't you just guessing?

Quote

Of course, does that mean that we should just blow off outlawing crime because we can't eliminate it?

Sure outlaw CRIME... But guns are not crime. They are only a tool.

You want to outlaw a tool, not a crime.

Quote

I'm against sound-bite arguments

Then why did you use one?

"Of course, does that mean that we should just blow off outlawing crime because we can't eliminate it? "

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

You have been violent with and without a firearm? If not, then aren't you just guessing?

I have used a firearm, and I have used a knife, as well as a baseball bat. None of them on people. But I hit something much farther away with a firearm than I did with a knife or a baseball bat, and I put a hole into it, too. I eliminated fists from my postulated situation because I'm only 5'4" and middle-aged. I'd lose most fistfights.

It's a guess, but I'd imagine that most people can hit something farther away with a firearm than with a knife or a baseball bat.

Quote

Of course, does that mean that we should just blow off outlawing crime because we can't eliminate it?

(then why did you use a sound-bite argument?)That wasn't an argument. It was a question, which was based on your argument that outlawing guns is pointless because you can't entirely eliminate them.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

Quote

I have used a firearm, and I have used a knife, as well as a baseball bat. None of them on people.

But you claimed that guns make violence "painless"....

"The thing about guns is that they make it so much more painless for many people to be violent. "

So have you or have you not used a firearm to inflict violence? Or are you making a guess?

Quote

I'd lose most fistfights.

Well, then I hope you are allowed to carry a weapon if you need it.

Quote

Which was based on your argument that outlawing guns is pointless because you can't entirely eliminate them.

Actually my point was that outlawing guns will not stop CRIME. It will also not stop gun violence as evidenced by the outlawing of drugs. And more evidence is the number of criminals that are not allowed to have guns but somehow use them anyway.

So just to make my point crystal clear:

1. Even if you could wave a magic wand and get rid of every single weapon, there will still be violence. All you really do is put people like yourself at an automatic disadvantage due to your smaller size.

"I eliminated fists from my postulated situation because I'm only 5'4" and middle-aged. I'd lose most fistfights. "

And a recent study has show that disabled people are more likely to the victim of crime.

http://www.thesunnews.com/253/story/1096829.html

Quote

Disabled people are 1.5 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than nondisabled people, according to a government study....

Michael Rand, a co-author of the study who heads crime victim statistics at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, said it's likely the disabled are victimized more because they are seen as easier targets.

"It's clear that overall, people with disabilities are more vulnerable to being a victim of violent crime than others," he said.

Not everyone is capable of fighting to defend themselves. You are 5'4" and maybe 100 pounds, my Dad is 70... Criminals prey on the weak, they don't attack 200 pound body builders.

2. No matter how many laws you pass, criminals don't pay attention to them. Do you really think a criminal that is planning to kill someone will not do it with a gun since using a gun would be illegal? Example after example has proven that to be false.

3. The bans that most people think are great really don't do anything. The AWB that so many love does nothing. The DOJ released a report that showed that even before the 94 AWB that so called "assault weapons" were used in LESS than 3-6% of crimes.

Why ban something that has been shown not to be a problem?

The CDC released a report in Oct 2003 saying that they could find NO correlation between gun laws and reductions in crime. Why do more of what has been shown not to do anything?

4. Guns are just tools. They do not turn a law abiding citizen into a killer. They don't sneak out at night and go on killing sprees.

Those are my points.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The problem is that it is difficult to do conclusive research on this. Where is your proof that violent video games have little effect. I think the statistics you give here don't add up to much.

I don't need to prove a negative - the burden is on you to support your unfounded claim. I only need to observe that despite the arrival of violent gaming, that there has been no increase in violence, and rather the opposite. The only way for these games to still have a great effect is for some other factor to remove just as much violence at the same time. Pretty far fetched.

So far you still got 'common sense' and no facts to support your belief. Might as well be religion.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

But you claimed that guns make violence "painless"....

I said "more painless." I don't have to risk being hit by a person I'm aiming a gun at. Which is good if I'm defending myself, and bad if I'm drunk, angry, prone to short-sighted actions, and armed.
I have not used a firearm to inflict violence. I have also never bounced, but it doesn't keep me from wanting to avoid it.

Quote

Actually my point was that outlawing guns will not stop CRIME. It will also not stop gun violence as evidenced by the outlawing of drugs.

Will it reduce them? Outlawing crime doesn't seem to eliminate it either, but it doesn't stop us from trying.
Besides simply saying "don't do that," how do we keep weapons out of the hands of people who are violent, or at least drunk, angry, and prone to short-sighted actions.

I don't give a flying fuck if the guy next door has a gun safe with all kinds of cool toys. While having a gun with me at all times might increase my chances in a situation where guns were necessary, isn't a preferable option to reduce the situations where guns are necessary? How to do that? Preferably without banning weapons.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DeathByCactus 0]

Quote

Quote

And I bet if you took away all their spoons, that they would still eat.

I like that one.

Spoons are for eating.
Guns are for shooting.

take away all the spoons, people will still eat.
take away all the guns, people will still.....shoot?

Take away all the spoons, people will still eat.
Take away all the guns... the government would have to kill a lot of people first.

Aspiring flying squirrel / Jump student

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Take away all the guns... the government would have to kill a lot of people first.

I find that rambo responses leave little to discuss.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Guns are just tools. They do not turn a law abiding citizen into a killer. They don't sneak out at night and go on killing sprees.

Ron, I completely agree with you. They are tools, in many cases very effective tools. I would see the purpose of a gun ban not being the elimination of crime. I wouldn't even qualify it as a reduction of crime. I would only see it as an attempt to reduce deaths.

I would assume we could all agree that the "average" person walking into a crowd with a gun will likely kill more people than the "average" person walking into a crowd with a knife.

(Now try to keep in mind that this for me is a hypothetical discussion, I could care less about gun ownership in the US)

[billvon 3,116]

>Take away all the guns... the government would have to kill a lot of
>people first.

They currently do this for airline passengers, juries and courtroom visitors. Haven't had to kill _too_ many people so far to accomplish that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ron, I completely agree with you. They are tools, in many cases very effective tools. I would see the purpose of a gun ban not being the elimination of crime. I wouldn't even qualify it as a reduction of crime. I would only see it as an attempt to reduce deaths.

but given the history of it, particularly wrt racism, many of us see it as an attempt to control the population, or certain subsets thereof.

Quote

I would assume we could all agree that the "average" person walking into a crowd with a gun will likely kill more people than the "average" person walking into a crowd with a knife.

your attempts at defining, rather than finding, common ground, amuse me.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Take away all the spoons, people will still eat.
Take away all the guns... the government would have to kill a lot of people first.

What will that mean to an unknowing alien? Please, explicate.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Ron 10]

Quote

Will it reduce them?

Only if you think criminals will suddenly turn them in. DC, NY, LA all have bans on these types of weapons and criminals still use them. The only thing they have done is make it so law abiding citizens can't own them.

Quote

Outlawing crime doesn't seem to eliminate it either, but it doesn't stop us from trying.

So your solution is to follow another path that has been shown not to work? And in the process punish people that have done nothing wrong? You are willing to deny someones rights under the BoR in the hopes that it *might* do something?

Quote

Besides simply saying "don't do that," how do we keep weapons out of the hands of people who are violent, or at least drunk, angry, and prone to short-sighted actions.

Criminals are already not allowed to own firearms. It is illegal to carry under the influence.

Quote

While having a gun with me at all times might increase my chances in a situation where guns were necessary, isn't a preferable option to reduce the situations where guns are necessary?

Just like having an AAD is a good option, it is better to avoid the situation where you might need it. You seem to think that anyone with a CHL is gunning for a fight.... Statistics on CHL holders prove your point wrong. Statistics show that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, stats have also shown that people who are going to commit suicide will do it with whatever they can and that gun bans do not reduce the RATE of suicides, only the method.

Remove suicides and the next highest group is criminal on criminal violence.... Well heck, they are already not allowed to own guns.

Quote

How to do that? Preferably without banning weapons.

1. Don't commit suicide.
2. Don't hang out with criminals and don't engage in criminal activity.

Those two alone will reduce your chances of being involved in violence more than any gun ban.

3. Next you could actually follow the hundreds of laws already in place.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I would see the purpose of a gun ban not being the elimination of crime. I wouldn't even qualify it as a reduction of crime. I would only see it as an attempt to reduce deaths.

If you really wanted to reduce deaths, you would ban over eating, smoking, drinking...ect. All kill FAR more people each year.

I am not willing to punish law abiding citizens for an *attempt* that it might reduce deaths. Especially when you consider the two largest areas are suicides and crime related. Drug crimes and suicides count for 2 out of 3 gun related deaths each year....

Quote

I would assume we could all agree that the "average" person walking into a crowd with a gun will likely kill more people than the "average" person walking into a crowd with a knife.

Sure and I am also sure we can agree that the "average" person is not likely to walk into a crowd and attempt to kill people with either a knife or a gun.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

but given the history of it, particularly wrt racism, many of us see it as an attempt to control the population, or certain subsets thereof.

Interesting point, can you elaborate more on that?

Quote

your attempts at defining, rather than finding, common ground, amuse me.

Actually forgot to put a question mark at the end of that sentence, since it was meant as more of a question.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sure and I am also sure we can agree that the "average" person is not likely to walk into a crowd and attempt to kill people with either a knife or a gun.

Absolutely. Hence average was in parenthesis, to indicate there really wouldn't be much average about such a person. The average related to skill with either weapon as opposed to general mindset. Otherwise it would just get rambo responses.

So, logic does dictate that if you reduce the access to, or availability of the most usefull tool, result should change.

Specially for the US the challenge is, how to reduce that availability to the best tool, to try and reduce some of the deaths related to it. (As a side note, the other examples you brought forward all relate to an action and not a tool)

The other side of the argument obviously is, that the proportionate high number of deaths is just the price to pay for the 2nd amendmend. I see that as the juggling act.

[Ron 10]

Quote

So, logic does dictate that if you reduce the access to, or availability of the most usefull tool, result should change.

Only if you can get EVERYONE's access reduced. And history has shown you are not able to do that.

Can you agree that it would be better to be armed when faced with an armed opponent?

Quote

As a side note, the other examples you brought forward all relate to an action and not a tool

I did that for a reason.. Notice I am not supporting banning all those things?

I say you work on behavior, not tools.

Quote

The other side of the argument obviously is, that the proportionate high number of deaths is just the price to pay for the 2nd amendmend. I see that as the juggling act.

Well consider that 2/3rds of those deaths are either suicides or drug related crime.... Both already illegal BTW... That leaves 1/3rd to accidents and violence against innocent people (innocent as defined as not being engaged in criminal activity).

You want to reduce gun crime?

1. Better mental health screening to prevent suicides.
2. Keep kids away from drugs.
3. Keep kids away from criminals.
4. Teach kids about firearms.
5. Lock up your firearms away from children.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[460 0]

I love guns! Check out this little WWII baby. Quad 50 caliber guns! Anti-aircraft. The perfect weapon for home defense. I can purchase it legally here in the US from ARM USA!

Looks like a death sandwich without the bread - Steve Deadman Morrell, BASE 174

[Zach 0]

Quote

In America's Revolutionary War soldiers would line up at can't miss ranges. Volley after volley were fired. Very few soldiers were killed, because normal people have a real difficult time killing the enemy.

Even in World War II soldiers often could not shoot at the enemy or in many cases they didn't even fire their weapons in a fire fight. There is documentation and statistics to prove all of this.

With more realistic training soldiers became more efficient killers. In Vietnam the effective firing rate of soldiers increased ten fold.

I wrote a paper on the book you refer to in graduate school. While Grossman (I think his name is) has a lot of statistics on firing/hit rates from different wars throughout history, I found in doing my research that often he misinterpreted or misrepresented (I'm not accusing him of lying, just being sloppy) his sources. It is an ineresting book, but not super accurate in its conclusions (in my opinion - take it or leave it).

Sorry to side track the conversation. I just remember being as interested as you seem to be in the book, until I took it apart, and found it historiographically weak. I can give examples if you're interested (which you're probably not).

Cheers
Zach

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

In America's Revolutionary War soldiers would line up at can't miss ranges. Volley after volley were fired. Very few soldiers were killed, because normal people have a real difficult time killing the enemy.

Even in World War II soldiers often could not shoot at the enemy or in many cases they didn't even fire their weapons in a fire fight. There is documentation and statistics to prove all of this.

With more realistic training soldiers became more efficient killers. In Vietnam the effective firing rate of soldiers increased ten fold.

I wrote a paper on the book you refer to in graduate school. While Grossman (I think his name is) has a lot of statistics on firing/hit rates from different wars throughout history, I found in doing my research that often he misinterpreted or misrepresented (I'm not accusing him of lying, just being sloppy) his sources. It is an ineresting book, but not super accurate in its conclusions (in my opinion - take it or leave it).

Sorry to side track the conversation. I just remember being as interested as you seem to be in the book, until I took it apart, and found it historiographically weak. I can give examples if you're interested (which you're probably not).

Cheers
Zach

Actually... to take this hijack just a step further.

One of the reasons that firearms weren't as effective had to do with bureaucratic self-sabotage.... Misfire. The History of How Americas Small Arms has failed our Military is a good read.

[DeathByCactus 0]

Quote

Quote

....
Take away all the spoons, people will still eat.
Take away all the guns... the government would have to kill a lot of people first.

What will that mean to an unknowing alien? Please, explicate.

Have you done any research into the more militant militias that exist? Before I decided to skydive I was dumping money into ammo and combat gear to go start training with our local militia. There are a few though that just turned me away because they seemed, well... a little off? Kinda like, I want to be prepared to kill NATO when they come and try to take our guns.

So when I say the government will have to kill a lot of people, I mean that I believe there to be a large number of people who will view that as a hostile act and resist or more appropriately put, shoot back.

I would like to note, I am not one of these crazies. They weird me out. Although I have found a bigger and less insane militia to join and practice with. :)

Aspiring flying squirrel / Jump student

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I wrote a paper on the book you refer to in graduate school. While Grossman (I think his name is) has a lot of statistics on firing/hit rates from different wars throughout history, I found in doing my research that often he misinterpreted or misrepresented (I'm not accusing him of lying, just being sloppy) his sources. It is an ineresting book, but not super accurate in its conclusions (in my opinion - take it or leave it).

Sorry to side track the conversation. I just remember being as interested as you seem to be in the book, until I took it apart, and found it historiographically weak. I can give examples if you're interested (which you're probably not).

Yes, it’s likely Dave Grossman’s Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence.

And yes, I would be very interested in hearing more on the problems with his argument methodologically or historically that you identified.

For those who might be interested in Grossman’s general thesis but not interested enough to read the book (like me), he’s got a number of short articles on his website, e.g., “Trained to Kill: Are We Conditioning Our Children to Commit Murder?”

NB: Grossman is possibly better known in Speakers Corner as the popularizer of the sheepdog, wolf, sheep analogy.

I have another of his books, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society on my bookshelf, which, along with other books, is in the 'to be read' category. I’ve never met Grossman. Have exchanged emails with him on counter-terrorism stuff. He’s responded promptly and amicably.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

One of the reasons that firearms weren't as effective had to do with bureaucratic self-sabotage.... Misfire. The History of How Americas Small Arms has failed our Military is a good read.

Oooh, that looks *very* interesting! It’s now on my order list. Thanks for the recommendation.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[steve1 5]