Obama is anti Gun and anti Assault Rilfe.

[ReillyT]

the answer being "not enough to justify letting others die after a ban of the JOL."

That is a good answer, but I think that is the crux of what he is getting at when he points out the rarity of self-defense through gun ownership. In the cost-benefit analysis (which you may disagree with to begin with) of gun ownership, if the number of instances of self-defense are outweighed 100 times (or 1,000 or 10,000) by instances of murder by guns, then either the threat of murder by home break-in (since most people keep their guns at home) is small or the possession of guns does little to protect even those who have them.

 

[Shogun]

wold you give me that same lecture if the rare event just happened to be happeneing to yourself or your kids? Would you wipe your brow with a sigh of relieve knowing that no jaws of life will kill any kids while your daughter is losing blood while pinned inside some twisted metal?


By your logic, why do we allow anyone to drive considering yearly reoccuring auto deaths? Why do we allow the consumption of sugar given the threat of diabetes? Fast food and heart attacks? smoking and cancer? Nabikov books? etc etc.


WHY? Because such are not the midigating factor when free will is involved. Guns don't animate themselves and kill people. It takes a person to pull the trigger just like it takes a person to step on the gas peddle and run over a child in a neighborhood just like it takes a person to decide to overindulge with grease, tobacco and alcohol.

Is it rare to be robbed when compared with everyone else who isn't robbed at gunpoint? sure. Does that invalidate the occasions where guns are necessary for defense? Again, consider your answer as if you were that lucky rare case. Im glad we have a jaws of life, difribulator and guns around for those times when we need them.


Hell, it's not like England or Japan is totally free of violent crime the day guns were banned.


further, if a ban wont work with anything else then what makes you think it will keep guns out of criminals hands at all?


and, I can give you examples of people whose experience would say otherwise about the amount of protection they provided if youd rather consider actual news articles rather than rhetorical non sequiters.

 

[Anguille]

wold you give me that same lecture if the rare event just happened to be happeneing to yourself or your kids? Would you wipe your brow with a sigh of relieve knowing that no jaws of life will kill any kids while your daughter is losing blood while pinned inside some twisted metal?


By your logic, why do we allow anyone to drive considering yearly reoccuring auto deaths? Why do we allow the consumption of sugar given the threat of diabetes? Fast food and heart attacks? smoking and cancer? Nabikov books? etc etc.


WHY? Because such are not the midigating factor when free will is involved. Guns don't animate themselves and kill people. It takes a person to pull the trigger just like it takes a person to step on the gas peddle and run over a child in a neighborhood just like it takes a person to decide to overindulge with grease, tobacco and alcohol.

Is it rare to be robbed when compared with everyone else who isn't robbed at gunpoint? sure. Does that invalidate the occasions where guns are necessary for defense? Again, consider your answer as if you were that lucky rare case. Im glad we have a jaws of life, difribulator and guns around for those times when we need them.


Hell, it's not like England or Japan is totally free of violent crime the day guns were banned.


further, if a ban wont work with anything else then what makes you think it will keep guns out of criminals hands at all?


and, I can give you examples of people whose experience would say otherwise about the amount of protection they provided if youd rather consider actual news articles rather than rhetorical non sequiters.

Hey!! Nabokov is one of my favorite writers!!

Reilly makes a good point about the cost benefit analysis but you just repeat shopworn clichés.

 

[ReillyT]

wold you give me that same lecture if the rare event just happened to be happeneing to yourself or your kids? Would you wipe your brow with a sigh of relieve knowing that no jaws of life will kill any kids while your daughter is losing blood while pinned inside some twisted metal?

You get all punchy about this issue. I am just talking it out. Since the "jaws of life" don't kill and only save lives, they are not analogous to guns, which can both kill and save lives in self defense. That is why frequency of use (to save lives) is non-important in one case, but important in the other. There is no (or at least no significant) "cost" to having the "jaws of life."

By your logic, why do we allow anyone to drive considering yearly reoccuring auto deaths? Why do we allow the consumption of sugar given the threat of diabetes? Fast food and heart attacks? smoking and cancer? Nabikov books? etc etc.

By the logic I am employing, one would have to weigh the benefits of automotive transportation (or sugar or Nabokov) versus the detriments of their continued use.

WHY? Because such are not the midigating factor when free will is involved. Guns don't animate themselves and kill people. It takes a person to pull the trigger just like it takes a person to step on the gas peddle and run over a child in a neighborhood just like it takes a person to decide to overindulge with grease, tobacco and alcohol.

"Free will" is a mitigating factor in many things that are banned and that aren't. Crack cocaine, nerve gas, cloning, prostitution are all outlawed based on community standards and an analysis of their respective costs and benefits. Maybe you don't think that any of these things should be outlawed because free will is a mitigating factor, but it is a point of fact that in our society they are. I am only including guns (as an analytical matter) in the same calculus.

Is it rare to be robbed when compared with everyone else who isn't robbed at gunpoint? sure. Does that invalidate the occasions where guns are necessary for defense? Again, consider your answer as if you were that lucky rare case. Im glad we have a jaws of life, difribulator and guns around for those times when we need them.

I am sure that there are occasions when guns would certainly be helpful for self-defense. However, decisions about laws are more frequently made on the basis of what is good for the community, which requires an analysis of their respective costs and benefits to the community, not isolated individuals.

Hell, it's not like England or Japan is totally free of violent crime the day guns were banned.

further, if a ban wont work with anything else then what makes you think it will keep guns out of criminals hands at all?

and, I can give you examples of people whose experience would say otherwise about the amount of protection they provided if youd rather consider actual news articles rather than rhetorical non sequiters.

That is the question. Does their benefit outweigh their cost (both psychic and concrete)? The point made earlier about the relative infrequency with which guns are actually used in self-defense is just a manifestation of the cost/benefit analysis that you are doing right now. You seem to think that the benefits outweigh the costs, but the prior poster is suggesting that they don't.

 

[ReillyT]

Hey!! Nabokov is one of my favorite writers!!

Reilly makes a good point about the cost benefit analysis but you just repeat shopworn clichés.

Agreed. Nabokov kicks ass. It is hard to believe he could write that well both in Russian and English.

 

[LOki]

That is a good answer, but I think that is the crux of what he is getting at when he points out the rarity of self-defense through gun ownership. In the cost-benefit analysis (which you may disagree with to begin with) of gun ownership, if the number of instances of self-defense are outweighed 100 times (or 1,000 or 10,000) by instances of murder by guns, then either the threat of murder by home break-in (since most people keep their guns at home) is small or the possession of guns does little to protect even those who have them.

Guns are used defensively over 4 times as often as they used are to commit a crime, and over 100 times more often than they are used for murder. The instances of self defense out-weigh the instances of their use in crime, and FAR outweigh their instances for use in murder.

And when you look at your cost-benefit analysis, remember that your gun-control laws WILL NOT be an obstacle to criminals having guns. So you need to decide if there really is some benefit in disarming the potential victims of viloent crime, rather than the fatuous presumption that the criminals are the ones being disarmed.

 

[ReillyT]

Guns are used defensively over 4 times as often as they used are to commit a crime, and over 100 times more often than they are used for murder. The instances of self defense out-weigh the instances of their use in crime, and FAR outweigh their instances for use in murder.

And when you look at your cost-benefit analysis, remember that your gun-control laws WILL NOT be an obstacle to criminals having guns. So you need to decide if there really is some benefit in disarming the potential victims of viloent crime, rather than the fatuous presumption that the criminals are the ones being disarmed.

There is a good cost/benefit analysis for you. I don't know if any of your facts and figures are correct, but if they are, then there is a good case to be made that guns remain legal.

I am not sure how one can know whether outlawing guns will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. In the short-term, I would assume that you are surely correct. In the long-term, I don't know how one could know one way or the other. It would in large part depend on steps governments take in the intervening period.

 

[LOki]

I am not sure how one can know whether outlawing guns will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

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 ******* INTERESTED in disarming regular law-abiding folks? You can answer this, I am sure.

In the short-term, I would assume that you are surely correct. In the long-term, I don't know how one could know one way or the other. It would in large part depend on steps governments take in the intervening period.

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?

 

[manifold]

What is a Rilfe anyway? Does that possibly stand for Republican I'd Like to F*ck Everywhichway?

 

[ReillyT]

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?

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 coupled with a strong criminal penalty for anyone found possessing a gun (e.g., 5 years imprisonment) may make some people who might commit crimes decide it is in their interest to give up their guns. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that it would be possible to structure incentives to induce some to give up their guns.

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

Discussed above.

And you can be sure that outlawing guns wiil CERTAINLY disarm law-abiding folks. Am I not right?

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).

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?

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

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

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.

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

See above.

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?

I don't think that disarming the law-abiding is the primary motivating factor for most who espouse gun control. Of course, we are talking about aggregating the motivations of many into one sentiment, so no one rationale truly captures the "intent."

 

[Shogun]

Hey!! Nabokov is one of my favorite writers!!

Reilly makes a good point about the cost benefit analysis but you just repeat shopworn clichés.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I've got to agree with you here, Shog.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

Cost/benefit analysis may not be the only way to confront a problem, but it is a common one, and is almost surely the reason that fire extinguishers are onsite. The cost of maintaining fire prevention equipment is far outweighed by the benefits to buildings and cities that conflagrations don't consume city blocks. That is why there are building and fire codes that require this stuff.

 

[Ravi]

Cost/benefit analysis may not be the only way to confront a problem, but it is a common one, and is almost surely the reason that fire extinguishers are onsite. The cost of maintaining fire prevention equipment is far outweighed by the benefits to buildings and cities that conflagrations don't consume city blocks. That is why there are building and fire codes that require this stuff.

I don't know if that's true, Reilly. There was an interesting NPR show on the other day about the reason the levees in the country haven't been properly maintained. Apparently during the Reagan years it was decided (by a cost-benefit analysis) that maintaining the levees would be more costly than the occasional loss of life and property.

 

[Shogun]

You get all punchy about this issue. I am just talking it out. Since the "jaws of life" don't kill and only save lives, they are not analogous to guns, which can both kill and save lives in self defense. That is why frequency of use (to save lives) is non-important in one case, but important in the other. There is no (or at least no significant) "cost" to having the "jaws of life."

ok, instead of the jaws of life lets stick with VEHICLES. How many lives are worth the ability to drive at 70mph on a highway? If, in accordance with the anti-gun people, the answer is 0 then it's time to start being consistant. Everyone drives and a fraction of the population dies each year because we are allowed to do so. What arbitrary number of deaths can you fathom a ban on cars?



By the logic I am employing, one would have to weigh the benefits of automotive transportation (or sugar or Nabokov) versus the detriments of their continued use.

ok, then do it. While you are at it go ahead and tell me how violent criminal activity both began with guns and ended with a ban of guns in nations like England and Japan. Life happens. Blaming guns in the hands of criminals wont make it any less true the very reason that COPS carry them.



"Free will" is a mitigating factor in many things that are banned and that aren't. Crack cocaine, nerve gas, cloning, prostitution are all outlawed based on community standards and an analysis of their respective costs and benefits. Maybe you don't think that any of these things should be outlawed because free will is a mitigating factor, but it is a point of fact that in our society they are. I am only including guns (as an analytical matter) in the same calculus.


funny, i don't recall a single occasion where crack cocaine fended off physical harm. cloning? prostitution? Do people throw hookers at burglars where you are from cause they don't in my neck of the woods.

what, exactly, is the benefit of whores and cloning though? I can tell you exactly why guns are worth having around. I cant think of a single occasion where bodily harm could be avoided by having a clone or a whore next to me.



I am sure that there are occasions when guns would certainly be helpful for self-defense. However, decisions about laws are more frequently made on the basis of what is good for the community, which requires an analysis of their respective costs and benefits to the community, not isolated individuals.

likewise, im sure there are occasions where fire alarms and condoms and airbags and seatbelts and helmets are helpful... do we rationalize each of those into some cost benefit analysis or do we have them around for when it happens to be needed?

and, regarding the isolated individual, you are wrong. 2nd amendement, buddy.


That is the question. Does their benefit outweigh their cost (both psychic and concrete)? The point made earlier about the relative infrequency with which guns are actually used in self-defense is just a manifestation of the cost/benefit analysis that you are doing right now. You seem to think that the benefits outweigh the costs, but the prior poster is suggesting that they don't.


Indeed, the same, again, can be said about fire extinguishers, fire hydrants, AUTOMOBILES and sharp edged pieces of metal that we use for cutting things. Do you think you could convince a police force to trade in their guns for a nice soft pillow? Do you think crime and LIFE IN GENERAL would disappear if they did make the exchange?



I appreciate that you are exercising logic rather than jumping on a bandwagon. However, the frequency of use doesn't invalidate the value of ANY tool. If the jaws of life are used just once a year then the person saved will always call it money well spent. Likewise, accepting thousands of vehicular deaths per year for the sake of transportation doesn't invalidate the necessity of social mobility. Fire extinguishers ARE necesary despite not having a history of building fires. The social value of a gun may not be apparent to soemone who thinks kung fu will fend off a serial rapist but, then again, after the brave karate master is dead and robbed his opinion won't really matter all that much anymore.

 

[Shogun]

Cost/benefit analysis may not be the only way to confront a problem, but it is a common one, and is almost surely the reason that fire extinguishers are onsite. The cost of maintaining fire prevention equipment is far outweighed by the benefits to buildings and cities that conflagrations don't consume city blocks. That is why there are building and fire codes that require this stuff.

indeed, REQUIRED even if there is a statistically minimal frequency of occurance.


would the arguement that a low frequency of building fires negates the necessity of extinguishers float or sink?

 

[ReillyT]

ok, instead of the jaws of life lets stick with VEHICLES. How many lives are worth the ability to drive at 70mph on a highway? If, in accordance with the anti-gun people, the answer is 0 then it's time to start being consistant. Everyone drives and a fraction of the population dies each year because we are allowed to do so. What arbitrary number of deaths can you fathom a ban on cars?

I don't think that the anti-gun people (or at least most of them) would say 0. (Of course if 0 deaths occurred, then there wouldn't be a need for self defense at all.) With cars, like everything else, a c/b analysis is used. Raising the speed limit means more deaths, but it also means faster movement on the highways. If society deems faster movement on the highways more beneficial than the 500 extra deaths per year, then society adopts a higher speed limit. It is an arbitrary number (whether we are talking about cars or guns), but just because it is arbitrary doesn't mean it loses its significance.




[

ok, then do it. While you are at it go ahead and tell me how violent criminal activity both began with guns and ended with a ban of guns in nations like England and Japan. Life happens. Blaming guns in the hands of criminals wont make it any less true the very reason that COPS carry them.

The question is whether more people die because guns are legal, and if so, how many more. Guns obviously facilitate killing.

funny, i don't recall a single occasion where crack cocaine fended off physical harm. cloning? prostitution? Do people throw hookers at burglars where you are from cause they don't in my neck of the woods.

what, exactly, is the benefit of whores and cloning though? I can tell you exactly why guns are worth having around. I cant think of a single occasion where bodily harm could be avoided by having a clone or a whore next to me.

Prostitution, cloning, cocaine all produce a kind of benefit to the user (cloning doesn't really work in that sentence, but you get my drift). Just because the benefit isn't measured in lives saved doesn't mean that there is no benefit. A community derives a benefit from whatever a community believes it derives a benefit from. I obtain a benefit from smoking because I enjoy it, even though it may kill me (that is the cost).

likewise, im sure there are occasions where fire alarms and condoms and airbags and seatbelts and helmets are helpful... do we rationalize each of those into some cost benefit analysis or do we have them around for when it happens to be needed?

They can all be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. That is why some people don't like to use condoms. There is a cost. However, for most of the items you listed, the cost is generally assumed to be negligible compared to the benefit.

and, regarding the isolated individual, you are wrong. 2nd amendement, buddy.

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.

Indeed, the same, again, can be said about fire extinguishers, fire hydrants, AUTOMOBILES and sharp edged pieces of metal that we use for cutting things. Do you think you could convince a police force to trade in their guns for a nice soft pillow? Do you think crime and LIFE IN GENERAL would disappear if they did make the exchange?

All of those things can be subject to a cost/benefit analysis, just as guns can. Police represent a different issue, because no one seriously advocates disarming the police along with the general population.

I appreciate that you are exercising logic rather than jumping on a bandwagon. However, the frequency of use doesn't invalidate the value of ANY tool. If the jaws of life are used just once a year then the person saved will always call it money well spent. Likewise, accepting thousands of vehicular deaths per year for the sake of transportation doesn't invalidate the necessity of social mobility. Fire extinguishers ARE necesary despite not having a history of building fires. The social value of a gun may not be apparent to soemone who thinks kung fu will fend off a serial rapist but, then again, after the brave karate master is dead and robbed his opinion won't really matter all that much anymore.

I don't think frequency necessarily invalidates the use of any tool, but it is a consideration. The frequency of automobile deaths is part of the reason that the speed limit is not set at 120mph. I am not arguing that weapons aren't socially useful, but weapons (of any kind) are socially costly as well.

 

[ReillyT]

indeed, REQUIRED even if there is a statistically minimal frequency of occurance.


would the arguement that a low frequency of building fires negates the necessity of extinguishers float or sink?

It depends, is there a low frequency of building fires because of these devices? Generally, I think the potential cost of a fire is so high and the cost of fire prevention is so relatively low, that I find it difficult to imagine a world where fire prevention equipment doesn't pass the test. And that doesn't even get into psychic benefits. Who ever used the life jacket under their seat when their airplane crashes? No one, because you are already dead. Yet, I am sure that there is a psychic benefit to flyers in having every readily available safety device at hand. That apparently outweighs the cost of those useless life jackets.

 

[OutsidetheBox24]

My wife and I have shot two people in our time, both unwanted home invasions in my early 20's living in less than desirable neighborhood back then. Killed neither, unfortunately, but I wasn't as good a shot as I am now. Come into my home, uninvited, and I will shoot to kill you without hesitation or remorse.... because I've already "been there, done that"....

Home alarm systems and/or proper home invasion deturents are far more effective and much less threatening to the home owner as you arent forced to prowl through your house possibly in the sights of a gun or a knife.

Also, just because the law protects you if you feel a stranger is attempting to cause you bodily harm or death on your property, doesn't mean the state can't press charges against you. The line between the legal and illegal use of deadly force in a break in situation is not very thin, and the NRA spends a consinderable amount of time and money litigating cases where the home owner is found guilty. More often than not home invasions occur at night in the dark making it much more difficult to spot a weapon; which is the only way to get away with it unless the assailant is attempting to harm your children. So think twice before you go shooting the uninvited, you may find yourself feeling a little remorse after all.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't know if that's true, Reilly. There was an interesting NPR show on the other day about the reason the levees in the country haven't been properly maintained. Apparently during the Reagan years it was decided (by a cost-benefit analysis) that maintaining the levees would be more costly than the occasional loss of life and property.

Sometimes the cost-benefit analysis goes the other way, or sometimes the calculus is wrong. However, I am still sure that fire codes were originally devised on the basis of fears that fires would consume a city block. I don't know where I would find this information, but I am feeling pretty confident that this was a major motivation.