Help with counter points for anti-gun arguments?

[Kimio]

This conversation is a bit old, but I was talking with my brother on the topic of gun control and one of his arguments was the lower gun death rates in countries that have heavy restrictions. When I commented on their general higher crime rates he rebutted with "but the topic at hand isn't stopping violent crime as a whole, but rather mitigating or stopping violent crimes with guns. Guns being present in a way promotes gun violence so there needs to be restrictions to prevent more psycho paths from getting a hold of them"

I fired back, true that America does have a higher death per capita when it comes to guns, however the lunatics out there are an enigma unfortunately. Something no matter what we do, they'll find a means to get what they want. I stressed education and training, to which he said the problem is at this time, there is no real precedence for said training. It's not like it's mandatory to go to training in every state to own a firearm and even if it was, the costs to do such a thing is impractical. So what are we to do?

He does concede to the point that trying to legislate our nations culture/morals is unrealistic, but he feels that saying that more laws are pointless ties the politicians hands when trying to address the issue concerning firearms and their accessability to the public.

Banning them and having the strictest and most hardcore of hardcore of importation and exportation laws is one solution but completely unrealistic as is arming everyone in his opinion.

I for one am not entirely sure how to reply to these arguments of his.

Thoughts?

 

[Tom Servo]

Banning them and having the strictest and most hardcore of hardcore of importation and exportation laws is one solution but completely unrealistic as is arming everyone in his opinion.

An utter ban, followed by a universal buyback scheme would reduce gun violence to some extent. How much? How long would it take to see the effect? Hard to say.

The problem with the approach is that there would still be millions of contraband guns in the country. There are simply too many out there. In the final months of legal ownership, we'd see a gray market appear. That would become a very lucrative black market once the ban took place.

It wouldn't just be the criminally-inclined who'd keep their guns. Otherwise law-abiding citizens would take the risk and do the same. I have family in Egypt and friends in Mexico. Both countries have strict rules on ownership, yet many common households flaunt the laws. Compliance with the Australian scheme is estimated to be less than 20%.

Can we really prosecute millions of people? Is it worth it?

The problem with gun violence is that it's violence. We need to address the root causes. Going after the tools is a flawed and useless strategy. It may make for good politics in the short term, but it won't fix anything.

 

[doofus47]

I guess the primary question is, "why are guns accessible at all"?

Your brother's assumption is that guns are available to enable crime.

My assumption is that guns are available to citizens so that they might defend themselves from mortal danger.

In my reasoning, a democracy (or democratic republic) that wants to enable citizens to control their own government has to allow them to be safe. Ultimately, if the government is the only agent of safety, the access to that safety could potentially become a weapon of control, e.g. "vote for us, or we might have to remove the fire and police departments from your neighborhood." Access by common citizens to tools of personal safety are not an obstruction to but a basic requirement for a free society.

Or put into a poor one-line sound byte:
"if you can trust citizens to rule themselves, why can't you trust citizens to protect themselves?"

 

[g.willikers]

but the topic at hand isn't stopping violent crime as a whole, but rather mitigating or stopping violent crimes with guns.

Ask him why he cares so much what kind of weapons are used.
And how come he doesn't care how many people are hurt.
Human violence didn't begin with the invention of the gun and won't stop if they disappear.
So, what's the point.
Is a victim less dead if they're clubbed to death or stabbed, instead of shot?
Entire civilizations have been conquered by sword, club and spear.
Does he feel better knowing that?

 

[Tom Servo]

Human violence didn't begin with the invention of the gun and won't stop if they disappear.

This is where it gets tricky. We know that, but the other side doesn't.

The counterexample they'll give is Japan. They have an absurdly low incidence of gun crime per capita, despite having active organized-crime syndicates. To them, that demonstrates that reducing gun ownership reduces violence.

Anyone care to rebut?

 

[JimDandy]

Here's some counter points for you.

The second half of the Leave It To Beaver 1960's had a higher homicide rate than today.

An estimated 80 million people in the US own firearms. With 32K deaths from homicide (11K), suicide (20K) and accidents (600), if every single gun death came from a legal owner, that's 0.04% of them. The number gets even smaller when you figure in criminals who illegally own.

With 400 million dollars in publicly funded traffic death research, there's still about as much traffic death as the next to zero public-funded-researched gun death. And there aren't 20,000 people a year driving their car into a wall for suicidal reasons.

That universal gun buy back after an all out ban- There's 300,000,000 guns in the US. At even a lowball estimate of $500 per gun, a buyback would add 15,000,000,000 to the debt. A Mega Project in Boston called the Big Dog was finished in 2007 or so, at a cost of just under 15 billion. It's estimated that won't be paid off until 2038 for a final cost of 22 billion after interest rates.

Super Strict California had a firearms homicide rate of 3.37 per 100,000 people. Lax New Mexico was just under that at 3.25 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile strict Hawaii checked in at 0.51 while in New Hampshire, about the same size was less at 0.38. The national average is 3.05. So if you fill a 100,000 seat college football stadium every day for a year, statistically 3 people will be shot and killed in that stadium in a year.

One of, if not actually, the strictest locations in the entire country, Washington D.C. had a rate of 16.45. While what could be the poster child for lax laws, Vermont, home of the popular "Vermont Carry" where you don't even need a permit to carry concealed they're so lax led the nation at 0.32

Whatever we're legislating we're doing it wrong because we're not getting consistent results lax or strict, good or bad. So adding more laws following a pattern of laws already on the books that don't work to combat crime isn't very bright.

 

[Tom Servo]

The national average is 3.05. So if you fill a 100,000 seat college football stadium every day for a year, statistically 3 people will be shot and killed in that stadium in a year.

Yep, but the overall homicide rate is 1.02 in Japan. The homicide rate with guns is 0.06.

Super Strict California had a firearms homicide rate of 3.37 per 100,000 people. Lax New Mexico was just under that at 3.25 per 100,000 people.

The counterargument is that guns will be imported into strict states from more lenient states.

So adding more laws following a pattern of laws already on the books that don't work to combat crime isn't very bright.

But we won't know if we don't try, right?

Just playing devil's advocate, but these are the arguments I'm seeing.

 

[JimDandy]

The counterargument is that guns will be imported into strict states from more lenient states.

Well, first, if you're expecting a law against trafficking in guns to stop someone from shooting someone when a law against shooting someone wouldn't, there are bigger problems.

Second, Then why are the lenient states similar if not even lower? If it's easier to get a gun there, wouldn't their homicide rate be astronomically higher to reflect that? California (3.37) is bordered by Arizona (3.63), Nevada (3.11), and Oregon with a whopping (0.94)

Yep, but the overall homicide rate is 1.02 in Japan. The homicide rate with guns is 0.06.

A lot of inner city gangs fuelled by a crushing drug war and the resulting cartels in Japan is there? Six out of 14 (Maine (0.83), New Hampshire (0.38),Vermont (0.32), New York (2.67), Pennsylvania (3.60), Ohio (2.69), Michigan (4.18), Wisconsin (1.71), Minnesota (1.00), North Dakota (0.59), Montana (1.21) , Idaho (0.77), Washington (1.38), Alaska 2.68)) Canadian Border States have a rate at 1.0 or less. ALL BUT TWO have a lower rate than the national average. Over half have a rate that is less than HALF the National average. I don't have a weapon-breakdown for other countries, but the homicide rate for Colombia is over 30, for Mexico more than 20. The Drug War isn't getting nearly enough "credit" for our crime rates.

But we won't know if we don't try, right?

We can certainly make very good educated guesses. The same way I know, no matter how many times I enter, I'm not going to make it even as far as the swimsuit competition in the Miss USA pageant. I just can't pull off a two piece around my six pack that morphed into a pony keg. I know, no matter how many times I try, when I jump off my roof wearing a bath towel around my neck, I don't have enough hops to make it over even a short building, let alone the tall ones.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. We've used the same paradigm since 1934, 1968, 1986, or 1993 depending on how you want to define it. We have data going back to at least 1964 that says what we've done hasn't produced a measurable change on the results as things have come into play, or phased out with nary a blip on the graph. The ONLY measure in place for the entire 20+ year decline in the homicide rate we're currently experiencing was the background check portion of the 1993 gun control push.

And Thanks Tom, it's nice to have a devil's advocate out there to set up the round two responses I've worked up.

 

[Spats McGee]

Why do we continue to argue statistics? Let's take a look at some assumptions and see where that gets us, shall we?
Assumptions:
1) That a comprehensive ban on private ownership of firearms, coupled with a buyback program could remove all legally, privately owned firearms in this country.
2) That legal gun owners would participate in such a program at a 100% participation rate.
3) That such a program would reduce the number of accidental and negligent gun deaths by 90%.

Now, I don't personally believe that numbers 1, 2, or 3 will ever happen, but if we assume that they would, we've begun to mirror the antigun arguments: If we took guns from everyone, "gun violence" would drop. If we get to that conclusion, is that a valid basis to revoke a fundamental constitutional right? I think not, but I'll get to that later.

I'll add two more assumptions, that I think are pretty reasonable.

4) That violent felons would not participate in such a progam, and would continue to seek out weapons, including firearms, for use in criminal activity.
5) That some subset of the mentally ill have trouble conforming their behavior either to the law, or to societal norms of right and wrong.

Add in those two, and we're left with a society in which violent felons and the mentally ill may well be the only ones with firearms. That sounds like a recipe for disaster for many now-disarmed individuals.

I don't like the statistical argument, because it implies that if the numbers "came out right," then statistics would be a valid basis for every dreamy proposition that the antigunners have ever had. I dispute that. If you take a quick look at the Bill of Rights, it's surprisingly undemocratic. The First Amendment doesn't protect the rights of society, it protects the rights of the individual. No matter how unpopular my view on a political matter might be, I have a right to express it. Now matter how unlikely I am to actually get Gilligan elected to president, I have a right to vote for him. Statistics are useful in democratic governments, but there are some rights that are, and should remain, beyond the reach of mob rule.

If I really have to argue a statistic, I'll take "1." I have 1 wife, 1 daughter, 1 mother, 1 father, 1 brother, 1 life, and 1 country. I love them all dearly, and I'll pass on any request that I give up the tools necessary to defend them, if the need ever arises.

 

[JimDandy]

If Spats is willing to vote for Gilligan maybe I DO have a chance at Miss USA. I'm going to have to start shaving my stomach. And my legs. And probably a lot of other places I can't reach either.

I argue statistics because that's the first place to go. Even IF reality and history was on an anti-gunner's side... but it's not. The first step to pointing out their pie-in-the-sky theories won't work is showing that history has already shown their pie-in-the-sky theories DIDN'T work.

It's a right, and it's in the Constitution works on people who enjoy the right, or lawyers who enjoy the law. Not many others. It's an ephemeral concept us laypeople don't know enough about to comprehend like we should. In that way it's a lot like the number 1 billion. What works on us laypeople when we don't enjoy the right is "If we're going to do something, it should be the RIGHT thing." Nobody wants to pay 15 billion in taxes for the WRONG thing.

 

[Spats McGee]

If Spats is willing to vote for Gilligan maybe I DO have a chance at Miss USA. . . . .

Regardless of whether I'm willing to vote for Gilligan, my point is that I should have a right to, even if everyone else tells me, "He cannot win." When the Defense Against Tyranny argument comes up, I often see the antigunners proclaim that "there's no way civilians could ever win against a modern army." Their argument boils down to "Gun rights proponents couldn't win, so they should not have the weapons necessary to try."

I argue statistics because that's the first place to go. Even IF reality and history was on an anti-gunner's side... but it's not. The first step to pointing out their pie-in-the-sky theories won't work is showing that history has already shown their pie-in-the-sky theories DIDN'T work.

But is it really the proper place to start the analysis? If some antigunner could show you a well-performed, well-documented study that showed that banning all private ownership of firearms would result in a drastic decline of all manner of crime, would you concede that a repeal of the 2A was in order?

 

[Librarian]

Whenever folks want to argue statistics, I feel the need to refer them to this paper:
More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions

Abstract:
What motivates individuals to support or oppose the legal regulation of guns? What sorts of evidence or arguments are likely to promote a resolution of the gun control debate? Using the survey methods associated with the cultural theory of risk, we demonstrate that individuals' positions on gun control derive from their cultural world views: individuals of an egalitarian or solidaristic orientation tend to support gun control, those of a hierarchical or individualist orientation to oppose it. Indeed, cultural orientations so defined are stronger predictors of individuals' positions than is any other fact about them, including whether they are male or female, white or black, Southerners or Easterners, urbanites or country dwellers, conservatives or liberals. The role of culture in determining attitudes towards guns suggests that econometric analyses of the effect of gun control on violent crime are unlikely to have much impact. As they do when they are evaluating empirical evidence of environmental and other types of risks, individuals can be expected to credit or dismiss empirical evidence on "gun control risks" depending on whether it coheres or conflicts with their cultural values. Rather than focus on quantifying the impact of gun control laws on crime, then, academics and others who want to contribute to resolving the gun debate should dedicate themselves to constructing a new expressive idiom that will allow citizens to debate the cultural issues that divide them in an open and constructive way.

More info at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

 

[Skans]

We have about 400,000,000 people in the US. Deaths by Psychopath going on a shooting spree are what, less than 20 so far this year? Ask him how many people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in just one small city just this year. I can assure you that in any city with a population greater than 100,000 the motor vehicle deaths are greater than people killed by psychopaths on a shooting spree in the entire nation.

The media completely skews perspective. The deaths caused by folks just out to kill for kicks and giggles in the US is basically none when compared to the number of murders caused by one tyrant in control of a two-bit country like Syria, who can do what he wants because citizens don't stand a chance of fighting back. How soon people forget why we really own guns; and how foolish people like your brother are to toss away their right and the rights of those that would stand up to tyranny for an utterly insignificant amount of more safety.

 

[JimDandy]

Regardless of whether I'm willing to vote for Gilligan, my point is that I should have a right to, even if everyone else tells me, "He cannot win." When the Defense Against Tyranny argument comes up, I often see the antigunners proclaim that "there's no way civilians could ever win against a modern army." Their argument boils down to "Gun rights proponents couldn't win, so they should not have the weapons necessary to try."

Well I bring up the Gilligan thing and my stunning swim wear ensemble as a bit of hoped for humor to keep the mood light. I didn't mean to disparage your candidate. That AR-15/Assault Rifle thread below here reads like it could use some of that too. So, again, sorry if that came off wrong.

As for the defense against tyranny argument, that's the first time it's been raised in this thread and I have a response for that as well.

First, everyone always seems to assume the armed arm(s) of the government will both side with the government, and side with the government uniformly. History shows that is nowhere near the case. The Army pretty well fractured during the Civil War, so assuming it'll be Bubba And The Boys against every Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman currently serving is short sighted.

IF this Civil War II were to come about the carnage would be ghastly even compared to some of the genocidal atrocities in Africa, AND the first battles would be on the military bases and ships themselves as the units fight amongst themselves to determine which side they're going to be on.

Secondly, why does everyone assume this sort of thing has to be some nationwide Earth Shattering Event For The Ages. We haven't yet gone a full century in this country without an armed insurrection against the government at some level. The Whiskey Rebellion (1791). The Civil War (1860). The Battle of Athens (1946). The Battle of Athens or the McMinn County War was a post World War II overthrow of the McMinn County government. Additionally it was probably the original source of every One-Horse-Town-Best-To-Be-The-Horse-Corrupt-Official western ever made.

 

[Tom Servo]

<donning my stunning devil's advocate bikini ensemble>

The same way I know, no matter how many times I enter, I'm not going to make it even as far as the swimsuit competition in the Miss USA pageant.

So you're not willing to do something about the problem? This is the same argument I hear from the gun lobby all the time. You put your fingers in your ears and ignore that you are part of the problem. It would be easier to take them all away.

Just look at [insert recent news story about a law-abiding gun owner having an accident]. That wouldn't happen if we had mandatory licensing and training requirements.

Ask him how many people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in just one small city just this year.

But cars aren't designed for killing. Guns are.

As for the defense against tyranny argument, that's the first time it's been raised in this thread and I have a response for that as well.

Oh, sure. You're going to resist a government armed with nukes and MRAPs. This is just another delusional paranoid fantasy stoked by the NRA and its cronies in the gun lobby.

<now taking off my devil's advocate bikini ensemble. In the other room. You're welcome. >

I argue statistics because that's the first place to go.

The problem is, you're making a rational argument against an emotional one. When we do that, we look pedantic and emotionally detached.

 

[JimDandy]

But cars aren't designed for killing. Guns are.

I never let that one go by. If guns are designed for killing, 79,770,000 people are using them wrong. The Army would never shoot at mere targets(and thus improperly use firearms) with all those Death Row inmates around. And they'd never televise Olympic Skeet, Trap, Small Bore Anything etc. again. But it would be a hell of a thing to get a college scholarship for.

Oh, sure. You're going to resist a government armed with nukes and MRAPs.

Tom, like most Gun Grabbers you glossed over the rest of the point I made. In seriousness however, they aren't entirely wrong either. Both extremes are somewhat deluded over the whole Civil War II fantasy. I still maintain the military would fracture the same as the country if that came about, and their hardware would go with them.

I'm always amused that people think whichever side the military would land on (usually theirs) it would be the military as a whole. As if they're some uniform lockstep political organization of automatons not a cross section of America covering the gamut of opinions and philosophies.

And the idea that we'd nuke ourselves in a Civil War is beyond silly. While I don't doubt we've elected men stupid enough to think ordering a nuclear strike on Maryland or Virginia was a good idea, the ones who work for him would talk him out of it- one way or another.

 

[Tom Servo]

If guns are designed for killing, 79,770,000 people are using them wrong.

<bikini goes back on>

But they're designed for killing! Whether or not they're used that way, they're a different class of product.

<bikini off. Gotta go wax.>

 

[Librarian]

But they're designed for killing! Whether or not they're used that way, they're a different class of product.

Sure.

Some things need killing.

Failure to recognize that is a character flaw.

Those cars? Registered by the state and substantially driven by people tested and licensed by the state? Those drivers and vehicles kill and injure far more people in the US than guns do; pick any year in the last 30.

Cars are dangerous. Get back to me when you campaign to ban cars.

< I believe that might be advocatus angeli >

 

[Tom Servo]

Some things need killing.

<devil's advocate Hawaiian shorts go on>

Ah, but why not just carry a Taser? Pepper spray? A baseball bat?

That statement implies an inclination towards violence. See? I told you. All gun owners are prone to it.

Those cars? Registered by the state and substantially driven by people tested and licensed by the state?

So, you're admitting that owning a gun should be licensed and registered?

<Hawaiian shorts go off>

Again, the other side relies on cheap shots and emotionalism. We have to navigate that minefield carefully.

 

[Librarian]

<devil's advocate Hawaiian shorts go on>

Ah, but why not just carry a Taser? Pepper spray? A baseball bat?

In my state, carrying a baseball bat is a felony - you wouldn't want me to commit a crime, would you?

And all of those are associated with deaths when used. But it's good of you to acknowledge that self-defense is legitimate, and risking the attacker's life that way is OK with you.

That statement implies an inclination towards violence. See? I told you. All gun owners are prone to it.

As are people who condone using self-defense methods other than guns ...

So, you're admitting that owning a gun should be licensed and registered?

Nope. Pointing out that licensing and registration does not even prevent accidents, much less deliberate acts.

<Hawaiian shorts go off>

I miss the bikini ...