The case against guns

[Tero]

It's all like them arms races in the cold war era. Or the SUV versus my Hyundai Elantra. The bigger tool wins. They are now debating how much an Illinoian can carry, and of course the NRA says as much as he can lift.

[Blind groper]

To Seth.

As I have said before, the simple answer is to eliminate hand guns. I have no problem with people with a legitimate use for them owning sporting rifles or shotguns. But hand guns have no legitimate use. They are simple murder tools, designed to kill humans, and not much use for anything else.

This elimination of hand guns has been done in every OECD country, except the USA, and in every such country, the murder rate is a quarter of that in the US. This shows clearly that the goal of reducing homicides by eliminating hand guns is, in fact, possible, achievable, and practical.

As far as "rights" are concerned, that is not even an issue, except in the minds of idiots. Governments are in the business of (among other things) improving the welfare of the people. This frequently involves banning activities that cause harm. Removing hand guns is just one more such action to prevent harm.

My source for saying that owning a hand gun increases your risk of being murdered 2 to 4 times is the New England Journal of Medicine, which is a far better source than the NRA, which is Seth's main source of "data".

[Seth]

It's all like them arms races in the cold war era. Or the SUV versus my Hyundai Elantra. The bigger tool wins. They are now debating how much an Illinoian can carry, and of course the NRA says as much as he can lift.

Yup. If they can carry anything (and the court says they can) why shouldn't they carry whatever they feel they need? After all, the only threat that the number of rounds in a magazine present in the hands of a licensed law-abiding citizen is to the criminal, and a fella ought to have enough rounds to win the fight, even if it's an extended one.

A law abiding citizen carrying an AR-15 with 12 30 round magazines is no more dangerous than one carrying six...except to bad guys...which is rather the point.

[Seth]

To Seth.

As I have said before, the simple answer is to eliminate hand guns. I have no problem with people with a legitimate use for them owning sporting rifles or shotguns. But hand guns have no legitimate use. They are simple murder tools, designed to kill humans, and not much use for anything else.

Lie. Fewer than one-one-thousandth of one percent of handguns are ever used in ANY sort of crime, including murder.

And they are very useful for spanging copper-jacketed lead off steel targets.

This elimination of hand guns has been done in every OECD country, except the USA, and in every such country, the murder rate is a quarter of that in the US. This shows clearly that the goal of reducing homicides by eliminating hand guns is, in fact, possible, achievable, and practical.

Except it doesn't, as you well know. With millions more handguns entering US society every year the violent crime rate continues to go down, which means that you're wrong.

As far as "rights" are concerned, that is not even an issue, except in the minds of idiots.

Remember that when the SS comes for you...

Governments are in the business of (among other things) improving the welfare of the people. This frequently involves banning activities that cause harm. Removing hand guns is just one more such action to prevent harm.

Our government is in the business of protecting the freedoms and liberties of the People from which the bureaucrats derive their just powers, nothing more. They govern with out consent and ONLY with our consent, and if we do not consent, then government must back off or be replaced by bureaucrats who will obey their masters, the People.
My source for saying that owning a hand gun increases your risk of being murdered 2 to 4 times is the New England Journal of Medicine, which is a far better source than the NRA, which is Seth's main source of "data".[/quote]

[Blind groper]

Seth

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping. New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates. After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Of course, this is not the reason crime rates are dropping. Crime rates have been dropping globally for the past 1,000 years. It is a function of the fact that most societies are getting more civilised. The drop in crime rates is certainly not due to extra guns, both the for reason above, and because it is a consistent trend everywhere regardless of how guns increase or decrease.

However, one thing that is clear cut is that nations with more guns have more gun crime and more murders. None of the gun lovers on this forum have ever given a realistic explanation for why the murder rate in the USA is four times as high as in other OECD nations where hand guns are rare.

[Seth]

Seth

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping.

Yup. More guns, less crime.

New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates.

So you say. There is no conclusive evidence that what you claim is true, but even if it is, more guns, less crime.

After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Nor does the number of handguns owned by a law abiding citizen. More guns, less crime.

Of course, this is not the reason crime rates are dropping. Crime rates have been dropping globally for the past 1,000 years. It is a function of the fact that most societies are getting more civilised. The drop in crime rates is certainly not due to extra guns, both the for reason above, and because it is a consistent trend everywhere regardless of how guns increase or decrease.

Yup, more guns, less crime. Therefore there is no need to reduce the number of guns in society.

Thanks for proving my case.

[Daedalus]

Seth

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping.

Yup. More guns, less crime.

New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates.

So you say. There is no conclusive evidence that what you claim is true, but even if it is, more guns, less crime.

After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Nor does the number of handguns owned by a law abiding citizen. More guns, less crime.

Of course, this is not the reason crime rates are dropping. Crime rates have been dropping globally for the past 1,000 years. It is a function of the fact that most societies are getting more civilised. The drop in crime rates is certainly not due to extra guns, both the for reason above, and because it is a consistent trend everywhere regardless of how guns increase or decrease.

Yup, more guns, less crime. Therefore there is no need to reduce the number of guns in society.

Thanks for proving my case.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that guns in the population lead to less or more crime. You might as well note that more cases of HPV in young adults, less crime.

[Blind groper]

Seth is using the phrase 'more guns less crime' as a slogan. I think the more intelligent people on this forum will recognise that argument by slogan is a fallacy.

The phrase came from Lott's book of the same name. The thing is that Lott is not respected or believed by the majority of his peers, who have looked at his work and found no evidence that he actually ever carried out scientifically valid research. It is far more likely that he simply invented his data in order to write what became a very lucrative book for him. He made millions on the back of his lies, by pandering to the gun nutters of America.

When we look at the alternative research that has been done by a variety of other academics, it becomes very obvious that there is no trend towards reducing crime by having more guns.

[Daedalus]

Seth is using the phrase 'more guns less crime' as a slogan. I think the more intelligent people on this forum will recognise that argument by slogan is a fallacy.

The phrase came from Lott's book of the same name. The thing is that Lott is not respected or believed by the majority of his peers, who have looked at his work and found no evidence that he actually ever carried out scientifically valid research. It is far more likely that he simply invented his data in order to write what became a very lucrative book for him. He made millions on the back of his lies, by pandering to the gun nutters of America.

When we look at the alternative research that has been done by a variety of other academics, it becomes very obvious that there is no trend towards reducing crime by having more guns.

Lott... he's the fellow with mad eyebrows and even madder notions, right?

[Animavore]

I think he's the guy who shagged his own daughters.

[orpheus]

Not the "gun nut" with a wife and children and a home who has much to lose and would avoid any confrontation whenever possible.

Is that gun nut that is most likely to kill his wife and kids, not some random 'hand invader'

"Hand invader?" That's a new one.

Why the fuck would you want to kill your own wife and children?

Where do you come up with this sick shit?

Sounds like you've got some real issues inside you, you're going to have to deal with. In fact, you should seek therapy immediately.

I might have to notify the authorities to your potential violent behavior.

That's rich, considering that you and Seth have been the only ones here who have voiced wishes for the deaths of anyone. In fact, you both articulated the desire for the deaths of other members of this forum.

[Hermit]

Not the "gun nut" with a wife and children and a home who has much to lose and would avoid any confrontation whenever possible.

Is that gun nut that is most likely to kill his wife and kids, not some random 'hand invader'

"Hand invader?" That's a new one.

Why the fuck would you want to kill your own wife and children?

Where do you come up with this sick shit?

Sounds like you've got some real issues inside you, you're going to have to deal with. In fact, you should seek therapy immediately.

I might have to notify the authorities to your potential violent behavior.

That's rich, considering that you and Seth have been the only ones here who have voiced wishes for the deaths of anyone. In fact, you both articulated the desire for the deaths of other members of this forum.

Collector is mimicking Seth. You too "have no sense of irony or sarcasm, much less humor."

[Seth]

Not the "gun nut" with a wife and children and a home who has much to lose and would avoid any confrontation whenever possible.

Is that gun nut that is most likely to kill his wife and kids, not some random 'hand invader'

"Hand invader?" That's a new one.

Why the fuck would you want to kill your own wife and children?

Where do you come up with this sick shit?

Sounds like you've got some real issues inside you, you're going to have to deal with. In fact, you should seek therapy immediately.

I might have to notify the authorities to your potential violent behavior.

That's rich, considering that you and Seth have been the only ones here who have voiced wishes for the deaths of anyone. In fact, you both articulated the desire for the deaths of other members of this forum.

Nope. Just the "avatars" or "personas" that some members project here. Wishing MrJonno dead is hardly the same as wishing that the actual living person behind the keyboard die. Assuming that the living person contributing to this forum is evil and must be killed is sociopathic nonsense because we ALL put on a persona when we post here...every single one of us...and we say things we don't hold as truths because that's part of the process of debate and intellectual exploration of philosophical matters.

I've said it many times before, and it's bears repeating: NOTHING I write here is directed at the individual behind the avatar, ever. It's all rhetoric aimed at the persona presented for the purposes of stimulating debate and exploring the subject matter thoroughly. There is not one person here that I would not be perfectly happy to sit down and have a beer with at the pub, because evidently unlike many others, I don't take anything written here personally, so it never makes me angry or upset. It's all just an intellectual exercise to me, and it should be to you as well.

It's my observation that investing too much personal emotion in an Internet debate is a quick way to lose all reason and perspective.


That would not be playing nice. But yes, some people need to be dead, and somebody's got to be willing to both say it and do it n order to protect the innocent and preserve the peace. I've seen evil, right up close and personal and I know that evil people exist and that there is no way to prevent them from harming and killing other people other than to kill them first. This is simply a fact of life that pansies, panty-waists and moral cowards don't wish to face, so they mumble and obfuscate and avoid having to even think about it, which simply allows the evil people of the world to victimize others unopposed. I'm unashamed to say that there are evil people in the world who need to be killed because it's true. Better that one despot or tyrant dies than tens of millions of innocents die instead. How would the Cold War have gone if someone had killed Marx and Stalin and Lenin and the rest of the tyrannical Marxist despots who are responsible for the deaths of 100 million people?

If you say that such monsters have a "right to life" that immunizes them from being prevented from committing genocide, then you're no better than they are.

This does not mean, of course, that there are not moral dilemmas involved in deciding who needs to be killed, when and why, but no civilized human being can disagree that history has shown us any number of people without whom the world would have been a much better and more peaceful place. That being the case, it's just as obvious that the next generation of despotic tyrants and murderers are out there waiting for their chance to kill people wholesale, and that someone in society must acknowledge this threat and be willing to undertake the necessary actions to make sure they never achieve real power.

[Seth]

Seth

I have told you many times that surveys show the number of gun owners in the USA is dropping, at the same time as the murder rate is dropping.

Yup. More guns, less crime.

New hand gun sales are up, but apparently to existing gun owners, so that the extra guns have no influence on crime rates.

So you say. There is no conclusive evidence that what you claim is true, but even if it is, more guns, less crime.

After all, whether a criminal owns one gun or 100 is not going to change the number of crimes he/she commits.

Nor does the number of handguns owned by a law abiding citizen. More guns, less crime.

Of course, this is not the reason crime rates are dropping. Crime rates have been dropping globally for the past 1,000 years. It is a function of the fact that most societies are getting more civilised. The drop in crime rates is certainly not due to extra guns, both the for reason above, and because it is a consistent trend everywhere regardless of how guns increase or decrease.

Yup, more guns, less crime. Therefore there is no need to reduce the number of guns in society.

Thanks for proving my case.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that guns in the population lead to less or more crime. You might as well note that more cases of HPV in young adults, less crime.

Quite right. Just as HPV is unrelated to crime, so is gun ownership by law-abiding citizens...or so BG believes. I happen to believe, based on plenty of credible evidence that MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does in fact lead to less crime because that's what the research shows.

But what we know without question, based on the US "experiment" in arming the citizenry with concealed handguns is that more handguns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not result in MORE crime. It results in either less crime or zero impact on crime, depending on who you believe, but since it doesn't INCREASE crime there is no reason not to allow law abiding citizens to carry such arms.

[Blind groper]

Seth

We can say with almost 100% certainty that with more hand guns in the community, the murder rate goes up substantially. Of course, hand guns are not the only factor determining murder rate, but if the number is high enough, it becomes a very, very important factor. This is especially true in societies with a gun culture.

If we look at the five developed and mainly English speaking countries, which is as close as I can get to comparing apples with apples, we can see this point clearly demonstrated. The five countries are NZ, Australia, USA, Canada and Britain. What is the murder rate and the hand gun ownership?

Highest murder rate and highest hand gun ownership is USA, with 1 in 3 people owning a hand gun, and a murder rate of 4.3 killings per 100,000 people per year. Half those killings are done with hand guns.

The second is Canada. A lot fewer hand guns, but still way too many. Murder rate 1.6 per 100,000 per year, and over half those murders with hand guns.

Then Britain (1.2), Australia (1.0) and NZ (0.9). All three have next to zero hand guns in the community and the number of hand gun murders are also next to zero. In my country, we get about 40 murders per year and about 1 hand gun killing per decade.

The data is pretty damn clear cut. More hand guns means more murders. In the case of the USA, one hell of a lot more murders. 8,000 hand gun murders per year.

As far as other crimes are concerned, the only 'evidence' I have seen to show more guns less crime is that published by John Lott, and his academic peers have no confidence in his work. In fact, from the reading I have done, it appears that his peers think that Lott's data is a pack of lies.