Glenn, some help please!!!

H

hube1236

New member
Really to all, but I like the way GEM voices his arguments.

Last night on CSPAN II, a show- forget the name, had the folks from meet the press on. For a total of about ten minutes they addressed the gun issue, replete with clips of NRA czar La-Pierre- forgive the spelling. (I like guns- not him).

One of the hosts said to the credit of the second ammendment lobby (my name for us) that everytime the show even mentions guns, they get more letters, emails and fax's than any other topic- most pro-rights. :cool:

The host made an argument that I sometimes have trouble defending gun rights. Besides saying that keeping guns away from felons and psycho's is the right thing to do, the availability of guns allows greater killing rates.

If a guy has a baseball bat, the argument went, vs a gun, a certain incident would have ended up in one or no casulties except for the bad guy. A ten round clip being shot in the park at innocents, is better than a thirty round clip. What is a good counter to this punch? It is a good point.

Balance of power does not work- cops have them we should- the argument always escalates to nukes. Besides, its Murder 1 no matter what the circumstance is when a cop is killed regardless of the power abuse. Bad guys have them we should does not seem to work.

Any help you'all would be appreciated.

Dan

[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
"If a guy has a baseball bat, the argument went, vs a gun, a certain incident would have ended up in one or no casulties except for the bad guy."

I would ask them what is the difference? Why is bat violence more exceptable? The object is not the problem. The criminal is the problem. Control criminals not objects. And BTW, bats are very suitable for killing.

"A ten round clip being shot in the park at innocents, is better than a thirty round clip. What is a good counter to this punch? It is a good point."

Common misconception of people with no working knowledge of guns. I could take three 10 rnds and fire and reload them in just about the same amount of time as a thirty. It's easier to carry one thirty as opposed to 3 ten's. And again it all goes back to whom and what we are controlling. Lawful citizens, criminals or objects.

Just my 2cts.

Sgt.K
 
First of all, you can point out that availability of guns to the general public has had no historical effect on the homicide and suicide rate in America.
http://www.guncite.com/

This site has a great chart (with sources cited) showing the firearms homicide and suicide rates back into the 1960s superimposed over the number of guns available. It is great for deflating this argument.

Second, the baseball bat argument is situational. I have several news stories of people who have gone on successful rampages with no guns at all. I like to compare these to the LA Daycare center shooting where the bad guy used 70 rounds from an evil assault weapon and wounded 5 children (none killed thankfully).

It never makes any impression on the antis but it does help highlight the point that intent and ability is a lot more important than the weapon used.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"If a guy has a baseball bat, the argument went, vs a gun, a certain incident would have ended up in one or no casulties except for the bad guy."[/quote]

I for one would rather be killed with a gun than with a baseball bat. Sudden death hurts less.

Though the best option would be to shoot the BG dead and go on living myself.

pax

"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit softly." -- Theodore Roosevelt
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A ten round clip being shot in the park at innocents, is better than a thirty round clip[/quote]

When those 10 or 30 round "clips" (perhaps you mean magazines) used by criminals are empty, how many rounds would you like the innocents to have to defend themselves with?

How many rounds would you want your wife/grandmother/daughter to be allowed to fend off a rapist with?

Make sure you get them to admit that it "IS OK TO USE LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE" before you go any further.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Guns mean greater killing rates" ???[/quote]

They do? What study has shown this? Kinda like Vermont, or Texas, or at Gun Shows and Ranges?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the argument always escalates to nukes. [/quote]

At this point, the person is simply being confrontational, and is not being intellectually honest. Cease the debate, politely.


------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Why thank you!

In any case, the availability argument is complex.

Clearly, pure availability is not the only active factor as Switzerland is a country stocked with hi-capacity fully automatic weapons and without their being used in massacres. Mr. Roberts has a URL that shows that sheer availability isn't the issue in the USA. Just as an anecdote, they used to sell surplus military rifles in the department store in my neighborhood and guess what, no one ever shot up the place. No NICS.
Just cash on the line.

One argument for the hi-cap ban is in fact, the reload argument. Less damage could be done if you have to reload. In fact, two nuts have been taken down during reloading:

Colin Ferguson
Kip Kingel

When they ran dry, citizens grabbed them.
But this is stupid. Ban all guns then. Is a ten dead toddler schoolyard OK as compared to a 30 dead toddler schoolyard?

The slight tactical advantage you can get when the monster is reloading is ridiculous.
Didn't the ban idea come from you know who
to sink his competition?

Of course, I would rather argue that armed citizens could have stopped them from the get -go.

It is also argued that the appearance of hi-cap evil black guns act as a trigger to disturbed folks. There is a debate in the literature whether the appearance of guns (style) triggers various levels of aggressive thoughts in folk. While I shudder to say something that doesn't help the RKBA, it might have some validity in some cases.

But there have been massacres with other weapons that are not so fierce looking such as the Texas Tower. The knowledgeable about firearms, when they go off the deep end are probably not so concerned with appearance.

The impulse killer might be.

As far as the greater killing rate - that is an interesting argument. Certainly it is hard to have a massacre with a ball bat. But looney attacks with large edged weapons do happen. Granted the fatality rate seems lower.

But Lott and Kleck have argued that with the elimination of all guns you might see a dramatic rise in nongun injuries during crimes.

Why?

Well, in a robbery or mugging, if you are faced with a gun, most people go along with the crime. You can fight a gun bare handed but that's certainly exciting.

But if criminals didn't have guns, they might actually start the crime with a violent assault to control you. Manly men might try to take on a knife (bad idea unless you know something).

Now, here is an argument. Most rapes are committed without firearms. But perhaps 4500 rapes a year are stopped with firearms.

Do you want to remove this ability from women?

The availability of guns for criminals of course should be stopped but not having them available for lawabiding citizens puts us at risk of the physical stronger. Look at the UK.

By the way, talk to a neurosuregon or neuropsychologist about the risks of baseball bats.

In the USA, the gun problem has been decreasing except:

1. Copy cats driven by the media. Very small in absolute numbers.

2. Increase in gun crime in areas with significant drug trade.

That's my thoughts on the question.

We have enough laws to deal with the flow of guns to criminals if we would use them.
 
Another argument was raised that the NRA is espousing the enforcement of existing laws, but has been against the passing of these laws. The show's host portrayed the NRA doofus (we really need better PR people) as hypocritical.

As gun owners and 2A champions, except for the felon law (with exceptions for Fred- another thread) do we support any gun control legislation out there. Yes they are unconstitutional, but do we support any of them that we are telling the socialists to enforce.


[bold]
[rant] Can we please stop calling liberals, "liberals," they are socialist. Joe McCarthy was a bad idea, but it would be nice to be a proud republican capitalist again.[\rant]
[/bold]
I use republican as an govt ideal, not the party who refuses to stand up and call stupidity where it lies. I.E. the tribe of injuns claiming the Moon is their sacred burial ground and now want US money because NASA inadvertantly crashed some ashes there a few years back. Or the Florida jury who refuses (3 x now) to let smokers be responsible for their own disease.[\rant really off]

[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
As an add on to the fire/explosive theme.
The weapon of choice in England has become fire, and the weapon of choice in Japan is poison, in edible form or gas. The old baseball bat argument really doesn't hold any water. Think about it. Why use a lesser weapon? Fists turn into clubs, turn into knife, turn into gun. Take away the gun, and I can assure you, few would turn back. Most would choose an alternative weapon that was more deadly than the last. Take away the gun, and the next step is a bomb, or a firebomb.
 
Hube - that's an embarassing point. I once was reading an old American Rifleman that I found in a garage sale. It was having a giant fit about steel shot and predicting disaster.
Guns exploding, mutant giant ducks, geese and ducks living together.

Today, you see articles comparing steel shot rounds in the rag.

One problem with the NRA is picking their battles in a manner which is not simply reflexive or given in too easily and not getting something in return.

They are ready to roll on mandatory gun locks and private sales checks and we don't even get flowers and a kiss first.
 
Pretty hard to carry a baseball bat around to defend yourself. Would you rather have a bat or a gun to defend yourself? What if it's a gang of Louisville Slugger wielding combatants threatening you and your wife?
 
There were a series of drug dealer murders commited in a city near me and the weapon of choice was a BB bat. Badly broken bones (crushed), internal injuries etc. Not a pretty way to go.

If all the firearms in the world were to vanish over night, some cretin would sharpen up his machete and procede to hack 40-11 people to death. I would rather take a round of FMJ than be chopped to little pieces by a nut with a BFK.


------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
First line of defense: "It's the constitution, stupid". It MAY be the case the this important right results in some trade-offs of negative consequences, just like the first allows KKKers and flag-burners. So what? Prudential arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the second amendment, because of the overwhelming importance of maintaining a citizen's militia with the second (because of protecting against tyranny, invading forces, and the right to self-defense).

Second line of defense. Having said the above, it just so happens that on a macro scale, all the prudential arguments happen to weigh in gun owners' favor. More guns equal less crime, and the social science proves this fact unequivocally. Show them Lott's research first-hand. Tell them to take their anecdotes and armchair quarterbacking and shove it - where's the proof, in the form of peer-reviewed, scienfically valid studies? Lott (and we) has it - they don't. Also, "assault weapons" are used in something like only a fraction of 1% of the violent crimes. Tell them you strongly support background checks to keep guns out of the hands of kids, convicted felons, and legally-certified insane people. But beyond that, it's an unconstitutional "prior restraint" on a fundamental right (the RKBA) to require any sort of licensing, etc.
 
Futo is correct.

I think I would ask Al Gore if NICS is so great, would he support a law that says that all states must allow citizens who pass the check to buy handguns or long arms to keep in their homes or businesses.

That would be a drammatic change for many localities.

That's it, no local nonsense.

Interesting to see if he raises the states rights flag because then you could ask him if that was the case, how come he wants all these antigun federal laws.

I am so wicked :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top