Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[Coito ergo sum]

For no reason whatsoever, we'll let Ted Nugent start the debate:

Ted Nugent: Why Guns Are Good for Freedom
Monday, 12 Jul 2010 10:02 AM Article Font Size
In a world increasingly hellbent on abandoning logic and the ensuing escalation of Obama madness, it is clearly time for the maximum celebration of the good old, always reliable Uncle Ted crowbar of logic.

I am ThumpMaster, hear me roar.

In the otherwise universally recognized perfection of the American experiment in self-government, where evil monsters like Che Guevara and Mao Zedong are routinely worshipped by the very imbeciles that these historical murderers would have slaughtered unhesitatingly, to a community-organizer-in-chief whose terminal rookie agenda is maniacally to spend our way out of debt and drop charges against clear and present criminal New Black Panther thugs threatening voters in Philadelphia, to black-robed idiots claiming Americans have no right to self-defense, where pimps, whores and welfare brats party hearty with the mindless fantasy that Fedzilla will wipe their butts eternally, ad nauseam - I am compelled to increase my crowbar swinging to new heights every day. I am the steel ballerina. Let's dance.

It is not good enough simply to spotlight cockroaches: Ultimately, all caring people must always rally to the requisite stomping party. For us varmint hunters, these are truly the good old days of a target-rich environment with no bag limit. Let the stomping increase to a furious frenzy and cacophony of good over evil. May America create the splat heard round the world. My steel-toed boots are giddy with anticipatory delight. Stomp on into a voting booth near you.

Since the 1960s LSD-inspired goofiness of peace and love, I have always been convinced that the gun-control issue has been the tip of the culture-war spear. Why the peaceniks still deny the truth that more guns equal less crime, in spite of the tsunami of global evidence from every imaginable source, is one of mankind's greatest mysteries.

From the Nazi gun-banner's dream of herding 6 million defenseless Jews onto the death trains to the no-guns-or-gunpowder-allowed IRA bombings and shoot-'em-ups in Bono's Ireland to Idi Amin's unstoppable slaughter of unarmed victims in Uganda, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley still fails to grasp the self-evident truth that gun bans and preposterous buyback programs are just the stuff of gangbangers' dreams. Who doesn't get this stuff? Liberal, dopey denial cultists, that's who.

The blindly obedient Canadian radio host I recently "debated" on his show once again completely failed to grasp how Canadians are trusted with blowtorches, chain saws, hatchets, wood chippers, bulldozers, coping saws, welders, front loaders, razor-sharp grain sickles and large diesel trucks, but not with wonderfully designed, perfectly safe and utilitarian handguns.

He resisted with every sheeplike fiber of his being the fact that the drug wars and biker wars in Toronto were not obeying the draconian, ultralaughable C68 gun law in his fine country. What the insane C68 has accomplished so far has been to waste approximately $6 billion in tax dollars and inefficiently register a bunch of farmers' goose guns. Phenomenally stupid.

More phenomenally stupid is the whole world's denial of the plethora of statistics proven in John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime," in which the desirable condition of safer streets and communities with drastically reduced violent crime is accomplished most readily where more citizens not only have access to firearms but actually carry them daily on their persons.

From the ultrasafe streets of Switzerland, where every household has a real, honest-to-God full-auto-assault rifle and ammo on hand (and a proud national respect for their fellow citizens, mind you) to the multitude of jurisdictions across America where more concealed weapons per capita are issued, violent crime not only plummets, but personal-assault crimes such as rape, carjacking and armed robbery actually disappear in many instances.

Could I please hear from someone who actually prefers Mr. Daley's gun-ban slaughter zones to the safe streets of armed America? You've got to be kidding me.

The line drawn in the American sand is very unfortunate, at times rather heartbreaking, but as long as there are people who insist on demanding policies that guarantee the continued slaughter of innocent lives, those of us who cherish life, liberty and the safe pursuit of happiness and good over paroled evil must not only stand strong and unmovable on our side of the self-defense line but also fight diligently either to educate the soulless and brain-dead among us or to eliminate them from the debate at the voting booth.

Some things, like life, are indeed sacred, and where gun control freaks have their way, innocent lives will always pay the ultimate price. Gun-free zones are a murderer's playgrounds. People who value life must do all we can to ban gun-free zones. Join the NRA.

Read more: Ted Nugent: Why Guns Are Good for Freedom

[FBM]

Horseshit rhetoric. Ted should stick to music.

But I still enjoy shooting and think the US is one of the environments in which responsible firearm ownership should continue to be allowed. The criminals have no shortage of them, nor do they lack the will to use them on their unarmed targets.

[mistermack]

Horseshit rhetoric. Ted should stick to music.

But I still enjoy shooting and think the US is one of the environments in which responsible firearm ownership should continue to be allowed. The criminals have no shortage of them, nor do they lack the will to use them on their unarmed targets.

Straight to the nitty gritty.
In a perfect world, where all firearms ownership was responsible ownership, nobody would ever get hurt. The trouble is, the world is less than perfect, and people do get hurt. Because people can be responsible one minute, and pure mental the next.

[FBM]

Horseshit rhetoric. Ted should stick to music.

But I still enjoy shooting and think the US is one of the environments in which responsible firearm ownership should continue to be allowed. The criminals have no shortage of them, nor do they lack the will to use them on their unarmed targets.

Straight to the nitty gritty.
In a perfect world, where all firearms ownership was responsible ownership, nobody would ever get hurt. The trouble is, the world is less than perfect, and people do get hurt. Because people can be responsible one minute, and pure mental the next.

Perhaps, but the frequency of occurence of a normally responsible person going apeshit is negligible compared to the frequency with which chronically irresponsible people/criminals continue their pattern of irresponsibility/criminality. Yeah, accidents happen and sometimes ordinary people find themselves in extraordinary situations under extraordinary pressures. But when I look around me at the world I live in, I don't see people just randomly toggling back and forth between caution and responsibility and random ape-shittedness.

[GreyICE]

Ted is an idiot. This does not necessarily make him wrong on the subject, but it still makes him a total idiot.

[mistermack]

when I look around me at the world I live in, I don't see people just randomly toggling back and forth between caution and responsibility and random ape-shittedness.

True, but it's in the nature of bullets that once in a lifetime is a pretty serious frequency. Once in five lifetimes is serious.
We all pay a price for the transgressions of others. If we didn't, it would be a mad free-for-all. Gun control is another example of that.
.

[FBM]

Ted is an idiot. This does not necessarily make him wrong on the subject, but it still makes him a total idiot.

There. Wrong reasons, but solid conclusion.

when I look around me at the world I live in, I don't see people just randomly toggling back and forth between caution and responsibility and random ape-shittedness.

True, but it's in the nature of bullets that once in a lifetime is a pretty serious frequency. Once in five lifetimes is serious.
We all pay a price for the transgressions of others. If we didn't, it would be a mad free-for-all. Gun control is another example of that.
.

I'm not getting the logical progression from premise to conclusion here. Would you mind going step-by-step for me? I'm a little dense sometimes.

[mistermack]

I'm not getting the logical progression from premise to conclusion here. Would you mind going step-by-step for me? I'm a little dense sometimes.

I'm not a fan of Syllogisms, I'm not even sure I can spell it.

So I'll just say that we give up many freedoms, because of abuse by others of that freedom.
Each one is a different case. We weigh up the costs TO liberty vs. the costs OF liberty.
In many cases, maintaining liberties for one group of people has a deleterious effect on the liberties of others. Like in racial verbal abuse. If you uphold my right to say anything I want in public, you diminish other people's right to live without being racially abused.
I'm happy to lose that bit of freedom, so that others can gain another kind of freedom.
With guns, I'm happy to lose my rights to guns, so that people can live under a diminished threat from other people with guns.
Gun control means controlling all guns, legal and illegal.
If for all of it.
.

[GreyICE]

I'm not getting the logical progression from premise to conclusion here. Would you mind going step-by-step for me? I'm a little dense sometimes.

I'm not a fan of Syllogisms, I'm not even sure I can spell it.

So I'll just say that we give up many freedoms, because of abuse by others of that freedom.
Each one is a different case. We weigh up the costs TO liberty vs. the costs OF liberty.
In many cases, maintaining liberties for one group of people has a deleterious effect on the liberties of others. Like in racial verbal abuse. If you uphold my right to say anything I want in public, you diminish other people's right to live without being racially abused.
I'm happy to lose that bit of freedom, so that others can gain another kind of freedom.
With guns, I'm happy to lose my rights to guns, so that people can live under a diminished threat from other people with guns.
Gun control means controlling all guns, legal and illegal.
If for all of it.
.

No, Gun control doesn't control all guns. Think about the definition of gun control for a second. Gun control refers to a system of laws that prevent legal firearms from being owned. Illegal firearm? See: system of laws. The goal of gun control legislation is to indirectly drive down the number of illegal firearms and illegal uses of firearms by reducing the number of legal firearms.

That's not even mentioning the freedoms you can gain from responsible gun ownership. A 5'1" 58 year old lady has what odds against a punk in Britain with a knife? And if they ban knives, it's just going to be coshes, and if they ban a cosh, the laws of physics step in and laugh and the ban goes away.

I suppose it's reasonably American. We expect people to be adults, so that if a person is carrying a racist sign or chanting racist slogans, responsible adults can make the decision on how much sense his cause makes (none). Others like the idea that if we hide under the bed and pretend the bad people aren't out there they all go away.

[FBM]

I'm not getting the logical progression from premise to conclusion here. Would you mind going step-by-step for me? I'm a little dense sometimes.

I'm not a fan of Syllogisms, I'm not even sure I can spell it.

So I'll just say that we give up many freedoms, because of abuse by others of that freedom.
Each one is a different case. We weigh up the costs TO liberty vs. the costs OF liberty.
In many cases, maintaining liberties for one group of people has a deleterious effect on the liberties of others. Like in racial verbal abuse. If you uphold my right to say anything I want in public, you diminish other people's right to live without being racially abused.
I'm happy to lose that bit of freedom, so that others can gain another kind of freedom.
With guns, I'm happy to lose my rights to guns, so that people can live under a diminished threat from other people with guns.
Gun control means controlling all guns, legal and illegal.
If for all of it.
.

Well, you're kinda all over the map there, logically speaking, but I kinda follow, I think.

In real terms, not idealistic terms, how are the authorities supposed to control the possession of guns by criminals? They're already out there, and until the criminals' gun threat is removed, non-criminals need the practical ability to defend themselves against gun-owning criminals. Disarm the criminals first, otherwise you wind up with a country full of easy targets. Disarm the criminals first, then the peaceful gun-owning citizens will have nothing to do with their guns except target practice and hunt. Is there something wrong with target practicing and hunting?

[Ian]

The goal of gun control legislation is to indirectly drive down the number of illegal firearms and illegal uses of firearms by reducing the number of legal firearms.

That theory only does so much. It's very easy to get illegal firearms on a thriving black market, and so long as any firearms are available legally (and for a long time afterwords, given that they don't spoil like produce), there's going to be a black market for them. Even if all gun shops were closed tomorrow and all factories shut down and all guns declared illegal, there's still many millions of firearms out there. So total gun control isn't a practical option, even if many consider it to be something of an idealistic one.

It's always been about where to draw the line. To get a little semantic: the 2nd Amendment doesn't say a thing about guns - it talks about a right to bear arms. But flamethrowers are arms. So are grenades and artillery pieces and nuclear missiles. And there are some individuals who could no doubt afford to own even the most destructive arms. I don't think even the most "freedom-loving" pro-gun NRA nut would think it's a good idea for someone like Bill Gates to be able to buy himself a ballistic missile submarine complete with a few dozen D-5 nukes just because he can. Along the same lines, should I be able to purchase a rocket launcher or a flamethrower? I'm sure I could afford them. But the answer should be no. This is where semantic thought has to end, and realism has to take over. Letting people own their own rocket launchers is a ridiculously gratuitous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So, how about assault rifles? Also a little loony, but there's some grey area there. How about handguns? Not so ridiculous, that's a real debate. For self-defense purposes, that's about where the "bearing arms" line is for civilians today. And the reasons for this line are based on the history of the US, and for that matter, the history of North America.

This brings up the discussion about why that line in the US is where it is, with much more lenient gun ownership laws than many other advanced nations. The 2nd Amendment was drawn up at a time when there was a wild frontier, no professional police forces in the cities, and when some farmers with muskets could make a real dent if they went up against a professional army; a legitimate concern given how weak the young US was compared to other major powers. None of these things are really true today. This bring up the other part of the 2nd Amendment text that the NRA doesn't really like to mention as much as the "right to bear arms", the necessity of a "well-regulated militia". There are some other parts of the Constitution we've recognized as obsolete and unrealistic (the 3/5 Compromise, voting rights for women, etc.). I'm not advocating repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but why is it so hard for so many Americans to be modern and realistic about what it really means?

Anyway, I'm just rambling a train of thought. And Ted Nugent is an idiot.

[mistermack]

You really would think from the comments of some people that the US was a land where little old ladies were constantly saving themselves from muggers and rapists with their guns.
Well, it's never seemed that way when I've been there, and I've met little old ladies and criminals.

Are there any figures collected, of the numbers of people who saved themselves with their guns? And how does it compare to the numbers of accidental deaths and maimings due to gun ownership? Badly, I would guess.

[GreyICE]

You really would think from the comments of some people that the US was a land where little old ladies were constantly saving themselves from muggers and rapists with their guns.
Well, it's never seemed that way when I've been there, and I've met little old ladies and criminals.

Are there any figures collected, of the numbers of people who saved themselves with their guns? And how does it compare to the numbers of accidental deaths and maimings due to gun ownership? Badly, I would guess.

And you'd think from others that the United States was a place where people ran around shooting at each other and waving guns all day. The vast majority of people in this country never encounter guns outside of those carried by the cops, used for hunting, or used on shooting ranges.

As for those numbers, well, not quite as bad as you think: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h ... n28663294/

I imagine that skepticism works better when one seeks out evidence, rather than supposing that the evidence matches your conclusion.

[mistermack]

I imagine that skepticism works better when one seeks out evidence, rather than supposing that the evidence matches your conclusion.

Well, your evidence doesn't address the point I made at all.
And after reading it, the best you can make of it is that there is an advantage in having a weapon IF you're attacked ( pretty obvious ) but that it's marginal ( rather surprising). As my point was about the overall numbers, and not the outcomes, you've missed it, it seems.

If you accept their conclusion, that when the worst happens, it's best to have a gun, I would say that's bleedin obvious anyway. Trouble is, exactly the same logic applies to criminals.
It doesn't prove that tighter gun control would cost innocent lives. Far from it.
If domestic guns were much rarer, fewer criminals would take risk carrying one of their own.
Whether the overall result would be lesser or more innocent deaths, is the big unknown.
But you can be pretty certain that accidental deaths and maimings would be fewer.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

You really would think from the comments of some people that the US was a land where little old ladies were constantly saving themselves from muggers and rapists with their guns.

You really would think from the comments of some people that the US was the land where little old ladies had to constantly save themselves from muggers and rapists, and that most of them carried guns.

Are there any figures collected, of the numbers of people who saved themselves with their guns? And how does it compare to the numbers of accidental deaths and maimings due to gun ownership? Badly, I would guess.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995) - 15 year old stat, but it is on point.

U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985) 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." -- 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." -- 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." That's a 25 year old stat, so not sure whether today's stats are the same, but they do show that felons at that time were concerned about home gun ownership and avoided situations where there were higher likelihoods of guns being around.

Now this is pretty old, but in 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.