Wumbologist wrote:Seraph wrote:JimC wrote:"Banning guns" is an absolutist statement which is purely rhetorical. In all societies, there is a spectrum of restrictions on gun ownership. The question might be better phrased:
"In a given society, will an intelligently applied increase in restrictions on gun ownership and carrying (particularly hand guns and semi-automatic rifles) lead to a reduction in deaths or injuries involving guns?"
Earlier, Seraph gave some convincing statistics that an increase in the restrictions in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre indeed lead to such a reduction.
Until I found out that the reduction of firearm availability did not lead to a decrease of the murder/attempted murder/homicide in the immediately following years, I found the increase in restrictions on gun ownership leading to a reduction in deaths or injuries involving guns to be a persuasive fact in favour of restricting gun ownership. So, yes, I did point out on more than one occasion that the murder/attempted murder/homicide rate by firearm dropped significantly, but each time I also pointed out that the rate of murder/attempted murder/homicide in the three years preceding and succeeding the legislative change remained steady.
On the surface this would support the opinion of those who suggested that gun control is ineffective, that people will simply resort to using a frozen chicken, or whatever else comes to hand, to kill someone with if they can't find a gun. On the other hand, it does remain plausible though, to think that this rate might be higher now if the mere availability of guns is the cause of death because it is so much easier to kill someone with a bullet than a frozen chicken, or that it might be lower because the prospect of threatening someone with a firearm is so much less appealing if the person threatened is in a position to shoot back. In the absence of a control group statistics of the sort mentioned above are just not capable to lead us to cut-and-dried conclusions.
If I recall correctly, the homicide rate in Australia had been steadily declining BEFORE the increase in restrictions, and merely continued on the same trend it had been on.
Once again, the statistical argument is bogus and immoral because it reduces every single potential victim of a violent crime who might thwart the crime or defend their life or safety by using a firearm to the status of an "acceptable casualty."
It is not within the power of a just government to say "It's acceptable that X number of people are victimized, injured or killed by criminals in order that we achieve a goal of reducing violent crime by disarming potential victims in hopes of also disarming criminals through gun bans."
It is true that governments make this sort of calculus all the time. To return to the automobile analogy for a moment, governments say "we accept that Y number of people will be killed in auto accidents because the social benefits of having an efficient transportation system outweigh the dangers posed to citizens by motor vehicle use."
They also say "We will mandate and impose regulations to improve highway safety (like seatbelts) in order to reduce the number of injuries and deaths from car accidents because that is a reasonable regulation of individual liberty in the interests of public safety."
But here's the problem with that analogy: It's predicated on a legitimate cause/effect analysis that more cars, driving faster on highways will increase the number of accidents, and therefore regulations to reduce such accidents will have a substantial beneficial effect on achieving the legitimate public purpose.
But when it comes to guns, the error that the gun-ban contingent makes is in refusing to acknowledge that prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for self defense when it is
the criminal members of society who do not obey such bans who cause the harm (generally speaking...we're not really discussing accidental shootings here) is like saying "We are going to reduce the speed limit on all highways to 10 mph because that way a drunk driver will not be able to produce as much harm in the event of an accident." There is a disconnect in the cause/effect analysis and an irrational assumption that the proposed "solution" to the problem of drunk drivers causing harmful accidents that involves infringing on the rights of all of the non-drunk drivers on the highway constitutes a rational response to the problem of drunk drivers.
When it comes to law-abiding citizens using their lawfully-carried arms improperly, the American experiment has proven conclusively that this is a vacuous and paranoid fear on the part of hoplophobes, and that in fact, US concealed-carry gun owners are among the MOST law-abiding and careful (with their guns) citizens in the entire country.
In Florida, according to the incredibly anti-gun Violence Policy Center's outdated 1998
"Concealed Carry: The Criminals Companion", "
ince the law's enactment, the Division of Licensing has revoked the licenses of 292 individuals convicted of a crime after licensure." But now compare the number of CCW licenses Florida had issued according to the same source: "Since 1987, more than 206,400 Floridians have applied for new concealed carry licenses. As of July 31, 1995, 200,241 have received them." So, 0.14 percent of those who held a permit were convicted of a crime. That's a great record by any measure, given that the general average of people who commit crimes in society is about 15 percent.
According to the Florida Department of State, between 10/1/87 and 8/31/11, Florida has issued 2,047,928 CCW permits. In that same period, a total of 4,781 applications were denied because of a disqualifying criminal record, and a total of 5,775 licenses were revoked for the commission of a crime after licensure, and of those, only 168 were for cases where a firearm was used to commit the crime.
Discounting the denials, which means the system is working to deny criminals CCW permits, this means that 0.28 percent of persons licensed by Florida went on to misuse or abuse the privilege granted by the CCW permit. Again, by any measure that's an incredibly small number.
The statistics, so far as I know, are pretty much the same in every state that has "shall issue." It may vary somewhat, but I do not believe it ever rises to even one percent of licensed individuals.
What this means is that the risk to the general public from licensed CCW carry is incredibly small, while the demonstrated benefits (reduction in violent crime) are quite high, starting almost immediately at more than eight percent and rising steadily as more people are licensed.
To go back to the auto analogy, government does not limit the speed (or for that matter revoke the licenses) of all citizens as a way to control the harm caused by drunk drivers because those who are not drunk and driving do not pose a substantial hazard to the public.
Precisely the same thing is true of licensed concealed carry. They are not a credible risk to the public, they provide a substantial benefit to the public in reducing overall crime rates, and they are able to protect themselves against the eventuality of being a crime victim, all without ANY of the sort of hysterical maunderings of the VPC, Brady Campaign or other hoplophobes who rant and rave that arming citizens will lead to blood running in the gutters and dead cops.
It's simply a lie concocted by anti-gunners that's been thoroughly debunked by the actual facts of history.
Therefore, because licensed concealed carry is a much smaller risk to the public than bathtubs, five gallon buckets, ladders and automobiles, among other causes of death and injury that all far, far exceed the threat from law-abiding armed citizens, it is utterly irrational and illogical to call for, support or ban the private, licensed carrying of concealed firearms by law-abiding citizens."Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
