Obama is anti Gun and anti Assault Rilfe.

[manifold]

People tend to get a bit touchy when human life is a variable in a cost/benefit analysis. Just ask Lee Iacocca. I'm still amazed that he got the Chrysler gig after the Pinto scandal.

 

[LOki]

Yes, many criminals have guns now. Will they be interested in complying with laws requiring them to give up their guns? Depending on the incentive structure, some probably will. For instance, a cash payment for guns turned in...

Which we already do, and doe not work...

...coupled with a strong criminal penalty for anyone found possessing a gun (e.g., 5 years imprisonment)...

...which we already do, and does not work.

...may make some people who might commit crimes decide it is in their interest to give up their guns.

And the incentive for those who would not commit crimes with their guns? A threat.

Why threaten those who would not commit crimes with guns?

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that it would be possible to structure incentives to induce some to give up their guns.

What sounds likely to me is that criminals will steal guns in order to turn them in for legal cash.

You can remian fairly sure that armed criminals will NOT disarm themselves simply because their arms have been outlawed,

By definition, law-abiding folks will give up their guns (or at least whatever guns are outlawed - it could be restricted to only certain non-hunting weapons for instances).

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It appear patently obvious that the puprose of outlawing guns is not o enhance the safety of those who would abide by the law, but to enhance the safety of those who won't.

With the caveat that rifle ownership could still be permitted (thus providing a deterrent to home burglary and crime), yes.

Firstly, this denies the best tool for personal self defense when law-abiding folks are away from home; and secondly, those who would outlaw only certain classes of guns do so as the stepping stone for outlawing ALL guns. Their record is perfect, and patently obvious.

Of course, whether this matters hinges on the empirical question of whether gun ownership actually deters crime, and to what extent. I don't know the answer to this.

Ask the criminals. The DOJ did.

I believe a gun-control advocate would say that over time, in light of enhanced penalties and the closing down of the market for guns (or at least closing down to the extent that they become much more expensive), public safety would be enhanced by a long-term decline in the amount of guns used in crime. This assumes that smuggling could be controlled to an extent such that at least gun ownership ceases to be generally cost-effective and in one's interest.

This strategy and it's market arguent, worked for Alcohol, I know--just as it is working wonders for crack, and heroin.

Gun-control advocates are disingenuous liars. Their aggenda is about them having control of the guns and you; and you being disarmed against their tyrannies. THAT is why those who propose these laws are SO FUCKING INTERESTED in disarming regular law-abiding folks. It is that simple; otherwise they'd focus their legislative aggenda on the crimes, and the criminals who commit them, rather than law-abiding folks and their guns.

I don't think that disarming the law-abiding is the primary motivating factor for most who espouse gun control.

It most certainly is--see above.

Of course, we are talking about aggregating the motivations of many into one sentiment, so no one rationale truly captures the "intent."

The one sentiment is easy, "I want control of YOU. I cannot have that contol while you can effectively defend yourself." If the point was not to contol their peacful and benevolent neighbors, then they would focus their legislative aggenda on the crimes, and the criminals who commit them, rather than law-abiding folks and their guns.

 

[Shogun]

2nd Amendment is a different issue. It is an important one, but it doesn't factor into the consideration of public policy, even though in the end it might trump considerations of public policy.


I highly disagree. Despite the "fire in a theatre" rhetoric we still let klansmen enjoy their first amendment too. Care to venture a guess on whose killed more people within the last 150 years? fires in theatres or the klan? Yet we maintain the broadest interpretation of the freedom of speech. Similarly, a cost benefit analysis isn't a reason to rationalize the trial of Ginsberg and, imho, it sure as hell isn't a reason to disregard the 2nd amendment.


Again, show me a crime free nation that has banned guns. Knee jerk reactions to ban a tool wont keep life from happening. Yes, despite fire extinguishers buildings still burn down.

 

[OutsidetheBox24]

You ARE sure, however, that criminals have guns right now; that they are not now, nor will be, interested in compliance with gun control laws, yes? You can be fairly sure that armed criminals will NOT disarm themselves simply because their arms have been outlawed, correct? And you can be sure that outlawing guns wiil CERTAINLY disarm law-abiding folks. Am I not right?

This will CERTAINLY make the law-abiding easier targets for criminals whose possesion of guns is unaffected by being outlawed. You can follow that, yes?

So why propose all these laws that are punitive to the law-abiding, and rewarding to the law breaking? Do you know?

Why are those who propose these laws SO FUCKING INTERESTED in disarming regular law-abiding folks? You can answer this, I am sure.

Outlawing guns ONLY outlaws guns for the law-abiding. Outlawing guns will CERTAINLY mean disarming the law abiding. This is patently obvious. It is so obvious, that I suspect that disarming the law-abiding is the actual, if not explicit, INTENT of such lawmaking. Whose side are these law makers on?

Dude, look, guns in America have had a bad wrap for a long time now. In the 80's and early 90's guns were so much more out of control and there were so many more gun-related deaths than there are now. Thats because a combination of tougher gun ownership laws, more organized law enforcement, and the will power of people through Neighborhood Watch programs have significantly decreased the amount of illegal guns on the streets. HOWEVER, like Ive been preaching forever now, guns in the hands of criminals can NEVER NEVER be completely stopped until NO ONE has the right to own one OR their ownership is SO heavily regulated that any time you fire the thing someone knows about it.

 

[ReillyT]

Which we already do, and doe not work...

...which we already do, and does not work.

The incentive of cash when guns can be freely bought wouldn't be effective. It may be more effective when guns can't be freely bought. As for the penalties, perhaps one just needs to ratchet them up even higher.

And the incentive for those who would not commit crimes with their guns? A threat.

Why threaten those who would not commit crimes with guns?

Because you can't identify the person who will commit crimes beforehand and because laws must be applied evenly.

What sounds likely to me is that criminals will steal guns in order to turn them in for legal cash.

If they are stealing guns to turn them in for cash, but guns are not freely available, then it is just a question of theft. Either way the gun is destroyed.

You can remian fairly sure that armed criminals will NOT disarm themselves simply because their arms have been outlawed,

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Perhaps. I don't know. There is a lot less gun crime in some countries that have outlawed guns. That doesn't necessarily mean the same would be true in the US, but it might be true in the US. I don't know.

It appear patently obvious that the puprose of outlawing guns is not o enhance the safety of those who would abide by the law, but to enhance the safety of those who won't.

Firstly, this denies the best tool for personal self defense when law-abiding folks are away from home; and secondly, those who would outlaw only certain classes of guns do so as the stepping stone for outlawing ALL guns. Their record is perfect, and patently obvious.

I am not convinced that outlawing hand guns and semi-automatic weapons is a stepping stone to outlawing all guns.

Ask the criminals. The DOJ did.

I haven't seen such a study, but if it exists, it would be one data point in a cost/benefit analysis.

This strategy and it's market arguent, worked for Alcohol, I know--just as it is working wonders for crack, and heroin.

Just because it didn't work for alcohol in the 30s or drugs today doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't work for guns. First, it would be difficult to produce guns domestically and clandestinely due to the manufacturing impediments. Second, they obviously would be difficult to smuggle in through the air. Third, they are larger and carry less bang for the buck (so to speak) then drugs - at least until the price would rise, which it only would if there was already a lack of supply. A rising price means not any ordinary criminal will immediately resort to guns if there is a cheaper alternative. I don't know if these differences will mean that large-scale smuggling won't occur to an extent that the prices come back down, but it is certainly possible.

Gun-control advocates are disingenuous liars. Their aggenda is about them having control of the guns and you; and you being disarmed against their tyrannies. THAT is why those who propose these laws are SO FUCKING INTERESTED in disarming regular law-abiding folks. It is that simple; otherwise they'd focus their legislative aggenda on the crimes, and the criminals who commit them, rather than law-abiding folks and their guns.

It most certainly is--see above.

The one sentiment is easy, "I want control of YOU. I cannot have that contol while you can effectively defend yourself." If the point was not to contol their peacful and benevolent neighbors, then they would focus their legislative aggenda on the crimes, and the criminals who commit them, rather than law-abiding folks and their guns.

I still don't think that the main impetus driving the gun control movement is to facilitate a docile population. That may be an effect, but I don't think it is the intent.

 

[ReillyT]

I highly disagree. Despite the "fire in a theatre" rhetoric we still let klansmen enjoy their first amendment too. Care to venture a guess on whose killed more people within the last 150 years? fires in theatres or the klan? Yet we maintain the broadest interpretation of the freedom of speech. Similarly, a cost benefit analysis isn't a reason to rationalize the trial of Ginsberg and, imho, it sure as hell isn't a reason to disregard the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal reason not to ban guns. It is potentially a strong reason, but isn't part of the public policy calculus we are discussing.

Again, show me a crime free nation that has banned guns. Knee jerk reactions to ban a tool wont keep life from happening.

There is no such thing as a crime free nation. That isn't really relevant though as no one has claimed gun control will wholly eliminate crime. That is not its purpose.

Yes, despite fire extinguishers buildings still burn down.

Yes, but they burn down less frequently, and with less loss of life.

 

[Shogun]

The 2nd Amendment is a legal reason not to ban guns. It is potentially a strong reason, but isn't part of the public policy calculus we are discussing.


I would suggest that it IS much in the same way the first amendment became a priminent factor in the ferlinghetti trials.. you know, another cost effective analysis that tried to determine the social cost of allowing a gay poet to sell a poem about his angelic haired lust buddies.


There is no such thing as a crime free nation. That isn't really relevant though as no one has claimed gun control will wholly eliminate crime. That is not its purpose.


indeed. Because LIFE HAPPENS regardless of the tool being scapegoated. and, yes, it IS relevant because the entire premise of a ban is to avoid lethal reprocussions being allowed by the tolorance of those tools. Indeed, show me how England and Japan has no GUN SHOT WOUNDS even though there is a handgun ban. People still get shot in england.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 16 Jun 2008 (pt 0031)



Yes, but they burn down less frequently, and with less loss of life.

at what cost to the lives of people who could have otherwise DEFENDING themselves from criminal predators? How many rapes occured when people are left with a rape whistle? "loss of life" may indicate those from gunshots but doesn't touch on criminal activity that is just as lethal as a bullet. Again, if you want examples I can provide them to you. Hell, I made quite a ruckus on this site a couple months ago when some home invaders were fended off with a handgun in my town. Thanks, but i'll go ahead and keep my life rather than hear some bullshit rhetoric about lottery winning statistics on frequency or the cost effectivenesses of my personal physical defense..

 

[ReillyT]

I would suggest that it IS much in the same way the first amendment became a priminent factor in the ferlinghetti trials.. you know, another cost effective analysis that tried to determine the social cost of allowing a gay poet to sell a poem about his angelic haired lust buddies.

It is apples and oranges. If you want to talk legal, then that is one thing. This was a discussion about public policy and the merits of gun control. I am not saying that a 2nd Amendment argument doesn't trump all, but it is not the topic of this conversation.

indeed. Because LIFE HAPPENS regardless of the tool being scapegoated. and, yes, it IS relevant because the entire premise of a ban is to avoid lethal reprocussions being allowed by the tolorance of those tools. Indeed, show me how England and Japan has no GUN SHOT WOUNDS even though there is a handgun ban. People still get shot in england.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 16 Jun 2008 (pt 0031)

I think gun control advocates are looking for less loss of life as a result of gunshots. I don't think anyone dreams death by guns can be eliminated.

at what cost to the lives of people who could have otherwise DEFENDING themselves from criminal predators? How many rapes occured when people are left with a rape whistle? "loss of life" may indicate those from gunshots but doesn't touch on criminal activity that is just as lethal as a bullet. Again, if you want examples I can provide them to you. Hell, I made quite a ruckus on this site a couple months ago when some home invaders were fended off with a handgun in my town. Thanks, but i'll go ahead and keep my life rather than hear some bullshit rhetoric about lottery winning statistics on frequency or the cost effectivenesses of my personal physical defense..

Part of what you are referring to just speaks to the benefits of gun ownership, which is of course part of the calculus.

However, then you seem to suggest that you will not be moved by any sort of weighing of the respective communal benefits and detriments of gun control. That's fine. Everyone has to evaluate the issue in their own way. You are making a decision based upon your weight of the personal costs of gun control, which seems like a perfectly reasonable way to make a decision for yourself (although it seems harder to extend that personal evaluation to the community as a whole).

 

[Shogun]

It is apples and oranges. If you want to talk legal, then that is one thing. This was a discussion about public policy and the merits of gun control. I am not saying that a 2nd Amendment argument doesn't trump all, but it is not the topic of this conversation.


its not apples to oranges. It's the same question of COST to society versus the effectivness of constitutional amendments that those concerned with obscentity went after. the EXACT SAME.


I think gun control advocates are looking for less loss of life as a result of gunshots. I don't think anyone dreams death by guns can be eliminated.

"less"? what an arbitrary concept. Why won't we rationalize banning cars for the same thing? Opinions and assholes, yo.


Part of what you are referring to just speaks to the benefits of gun ownership, which is of course part of the calculus.


And a damn important calculation for someone being raped, eh?


However, then you seem to suggest that you will not be moved by any sort of weighing of the respective communal benefits and detriments of gun control. That's fine. Everyone has to evaluate the issue in their own way. You are making a decision based upon your weight of the personal costs of gun control, which seems like a perfectly reasonable way to make a decision for yourself (although it seems harder to extend that personal evaluation to the community as a whole).



No. I wont. This is where the Constitution comes into play. Individually, I have the right to defend myself with more than a rape whistle despite the affect of guns on society. Perhaps this boils down to the "village vs individual" conflict on who gets to raise what. But, again, there is a reason cops wont give up guns. There is a reason I have a myriad of examples of guns defending lives. There is a reason why TOOLS are no more lethal than the hand wielding them. Ignoring the fact of a criminal constant won't make anyone safer even when some bullshit rhetorical ban sounds like a viable solution. It's not. And a record of gun shot victims in England proves it.



Not that I don't think that you are trying to be more reasonable about the topic than I am being. I applaud your civility in the face of my maniac with a shotgun routine.

 

[ReillyT]

its not apples to oranges. It's the same question of COST to society versus the effectivness of constitutional amendments that those concerned with obscentity went after. the EXACT SAME.

No, one is a cost/benefit analysis of the measure. The other doesn't involve a weighing at all. The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. I don't think anyone who advocates gun ownership would want to suggest that the 2nd Amendment be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. If people that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to bear arms by the individual, then cost/benefit be damned.

"less"? what an arbitrary concept. Why won't we rationalize banning cars for the same thing? Opinions and assholes, yo.

You are right that it is arbitrary. I think we do think about cars (or at least speed limits) in this way. At some point, we (as a society) decide that we are willing to accommodate 500 extra deaths to raise the speed limit by 5mph, but not 2000 deaths to raise it by 10mph. Cars generally are so crucial to the economy that their continued use would win out in pretty much any analysis.

And a damn important calculation for someone being raped, eh?

I've got no disagreement there. However, somewhere, sometime, someone will be raped by someone else using a gun. Would the result have been different if there was no gun? Could she have fought off or gotten away from an attacker armed only with a knife? Who knows?

No. I wont. This is where the Constitution comes into play. Individually, I have the right to defend myself with more than a rape whistle despite the affect of guns on society. Perhaps this boils down to the "village vs individual" conflict on who gets to raise what. But, again, there is a reason cops wont give up guns. There is a reason I have a myriad of examples of guns defending lives. There is a reason why TOOLS are no more lethal than the hand wielding them. Ignoring the fact of a criminal constant won't make anyone safer even when some bullshit rhetorical ban sounds like a viable solution. It's not. And a record of gun shot victims in England proves it.

There are gun shot victims in England, but I bet they are fewer (per capita and population density) then in the US. That is the public policy argument for gun control - fewer deaths. As for the 2nd Amendment, there are arguments that it doesn't convey individual rights, but I don't really want to make those arguments. I am perfectly satisfied if you want to stand on the 2nd Amendment. It is a good argument. It appears that it will be sufficient for the near future at least.

Not that I don't think that you are trying to be more reasonable about the topic than I am being. I applaud your civility in the face of my maniac with a shotgun routine.

That's cool. I know that this is an issue that you believe in, and it is an important issue. Besides, I've had a glass of wine and I am feeling quite chilled out. Cheers.

 

[Shogun]

im sure my tone would be different after a lil herbal refreshment too. Have a great evening!

 

[Anguille]

yea... tell me all about shopworn cliche's after you have your front door kicked in by a rapist.

COST benefit analysis works for people who have never been in danger. I assure you, there is a reason your employer keeps extinguishers onsite despite a lack of previous building fires.

What makes you think I haven't had my door kicked in by a rapist?

I don't know if he was a rapist but he had reputation as a Peeping Tom, the guy who tried to break in to the country house I was staying in alone several years ago. All the dogs had to to was show their mugs and he was out of there. I never once even thought during the ordeal that I wished I had a gun seeing as I've never even handled one and don't have any desire to.

Your little scare tactic reminds me of know it all religious types who tell you you'll believe in God when you are dying.

 

[wayne]

The United States has the highest rate of gun death of any Western country.

Could that be caused by a high violent crime rate, which has a cultural base?

 

[LOki]

Dude, look, guns in America have had a bad wrap for a long time now.

Not at all helped by the irrational fear-mongering the gun-control crowd has been propagating.

In the 80's and early 90's guns were so much more out of control and there were so many more gun-related deaths than there are now.

They were no more out of control, and what exactly, makes gun related death a problem where "X" related death is not?

Thats because a combination of tougher gun ownership laws,...

This has been PROVEN to not be the case, by gun-control advocates, by gun-rights advocates, and the government.

...more organized law enforcement, and the will power of people through Neighborhood Watch programs have significantly decreased the amount of illegal guns on the streets.

Utter nonsense. There are MORE guns on the streets.

HOWEVER, like Ive been preaching forever now, guns in the hands of criminals can NEVER NEVER be completely stopped until NO ONE has the right to own one OR their ownership is SO heavily regulated that any time you fire the thing someone knows about it.

Unless you're saying that nobody, including governments, will have guns, then there is no point in your rhetoric except to esablish your intent to disarm decent folks, and I suspect your motives for doing so.

 

[LOki]

The incentive of cash when guns can be freely bought wouldn't be effective. It may be more effective when guns can't be freely bought. As for the penalties, perhaps one just needs to ratchet them up even higher.

This only enhances the incentive to steal guns then, and this STILL leaves everyone else unarmed.

What is the intent of disarming regular folks?

Because you can't identify the person who will commit crimes beforehand and because laws must be applied evenly.

It is patently wrong to treat everyone who is not a violent criminal as if they were a violent criminal. PERIOD.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

If they are stealing guns to turn them in for cash, but guns are not freely available, then it is just a question of theft. Either way the gun is destroyed.

Yet more guns are made. The result being the destruction of works of art, in favor of new government issure weapons, and an unarmed populace.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

Perhaps. I don't know. There is a lot less gun crime in some countries that have outlawed guns. That doesn't necessarily mean the same would be true in the US, but it might be true in the US. I don't know.

What makes gun crime so special? These counties you cite--less violent crime after disarmament of the populace? Since the horse-buggy went out, there are fewer horse-buggy fatalities on the road--does that mean there are fewer fatalities on the road?

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

I am not convinced that outlawing hand guns and semi-automatic weapons is a stepping stone to outlawing all guns.

Considering the evidence, what is convincing you otherwise?

I haven't seen such a study, but if it exists, it would be one data point in a cost/benefit analysis.

It exists. I don't buy your cost/benefit bullshit, but if it helps you to know that criminals avoid armed mark if they can--that they understand that an armed victim is more dangerous to them than an unarmed one--now you know.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

Just because it didn't work for alcohol in the 30s or drugs today doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't work for guns. First, it would be difficult to produce guns domestically and clandestinely due to the manufacturing impediments.

Nonsense.

Second, they obviously would be difficult to smuggle in through the air.

More nonsense.

Third, they are larger and carry less bang for the buck (so to speak) then drugs - at least until the price would rise, which it only would if there was already a lack of supply.

Awfully nice of the governemnt to widen the profit margin for the black-market gun trade. Whose side are they on anyway?

A rising price means not any ordinary criminal will immediately resort to guns if there is a cheaper alternative.

So sad fro the criminal, but then again all is fair since his victims won't have guns--fair has to be fair under the law according to you.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

I don't know if these differences will mean that large-scale smuggling won't occur to an extent that the prices come back down, but it is certainly possible.

Price is not terribly relevent is it? You know, since the only folks enjoying the benefit of posseing guns wiil be the criminals.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

I still don't think that the main impetus driving the gun control movement is to facilitate a docile population. That may be an effect, but I don't think it is the intent.

So what is the actual intent of disarming regular folks?

 

[Shogun]

What makes you think I haven't had my door kicked in by a rapist?

I don't know if he was a rapist but he had reputation as a Peeping Tom, the guy who tried to break in to the country house I was staying in alone several years ago. All the dogs had to to was show their mugs and he was out of there. I never once even thought during the ordeal that I wished I had a gun seeing as I've never even handled one and don't have any desire to.

Your little scare tactic reminds me of know it all religious types who tell you you'll believe in God when you are dying.

yea.. the difference being that bible thumpers threaten with METAPHYSICS while I remind you af ACTUAL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR.


wanna compare hell stories with RAPE victim testimony?

 

[Anguille]

yea.. the difference being that bible thumpers threaten with METAPHYSICS while I remind you af ACTUAL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR.


wanna compare hell stories with RAPE victim testimony?

Wanna come to my house and hear the gunshots I hear almost everyday? Wanna see the kids across the street sitting on the porch, showing off their new gun? Want to wonder when a stray bullet is going to hit you or someone you know? You're so worried that the government is going to take away your favorite possum hunting rifle but people in cities have real problems to deal with.

 

[BrianH]

Now, that's a reasonable response, Brian.

Sure, no doubt I know people who own guns whose gun owership I don't know about.

Those people are, in my opinion, obviously not the gun queers I'm talking about. The own guns as tools, and don't make a big deal of it.

People who are queer for guns, who obsess about owning them, haunt boards like this, haven't you noticed?

They tend to assume that anyone who is not -- like them -- queer for guns, must be:

1. conspiring to take their precious guns away

2. commie liberals, pacifists, or otherwise testosterone deficient

3. afraid of guns

What happened to thse people to frighten them so, I wonder?

Guns are tools, but to these people they appear to be come kind of talisman.

I think I can agree on that. Most of the people I know are not "gun-queers" that you speak of, however, I have met their kind. Some people have a complex about it and think that because they own a gun and know about guns, they are better than everyone else. THen you have the extremely paranoid types---I won't get into those.

 

[Shogun]

Wanna come to my house and hear the gunshots I hear almost everyday? Wanna see the kids across the street sitting on the porch, showing off their new gun? Want to wonder when a stray bullet is going to hit you or someone you know? You're so worried that the government is going to take away your favorite possum hunting rifle but people in cities have real problems to deal with.

Hey, Im ALL FOR your right to go buy a gun for home protection. I believe in the castle doctrine and WANT to give you the ability to defend yourself from your neighborhood thugs.


now, stop trying to lure me into your abode, Ang. I know what you really want.

 

[Anguille]

Hey, Im ALL FOR your right to go buy a gun for home protection. I believe in the castle doctrine and WANT to give you the ability to defend yourself from your neighborhood thugs.


now, stop trying to lure me into your abode, Ang. I know what you really want.

The only kind of gun I want in my house is a water pistol. Clearly you are clueless about urban living. A few months ago a mother woke up and found her daughter dead in her sleep on the sofa. The downstairs neighbor had accidentally shot a bullet through the ceiling.

You may one day think differently about having guns in your own house or in your neighbor's house. Should the world be blessed with a Lil' Shogun, I would be very sorry to hear of another gun accident due to children playing with household guns.

Oh and dream on, Barney Fife