Looking for good arguments for a pro-gun society... difficult

Manta 49

Take those stats you posted

"Lets deal in facts there are around 50 firearms related murders in the UK each compared with around 8,000 in America, lets not point to other countries like every things OK in America, and there are no issues."

and apply some simple population math, include illegal immigrants and a shallow understanding of Gangs and derive some percent per 100,000 citizens

then try hard to find the very nebulous data on How Many Armed Citizens save their own or someone else life

well crap I do not feel like the next three paragraphs
Click to expand...

How many gangs etc are involved is irrelevant, i was just pointing out some facts after the UK was erroneously used as a pro gun argument. As you pointed out there are plenty of pro gun arguments already, agree with them or not.


Chicago should be an anti-gunner's dream city, filled with peace love and happiness. However, the FBI's uniform crime statistics do not bear this out. It's been a while since I looked at those numbers, but (if memory serves) Chicago has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. By comparison, I think Dallas or Houston have looser crime laws and lower crime rates. We have to be careful of causation, so we cannot safely say "more guns led to lower crime rates," but we can safely say that "stricter gun laws did not lead to lower crime rates."
Click to expand...

Do you really think all the problems in Chicago are just down to firearms policies, i would think there are a lot of issues in Chicago gangs unemployment drugs etc. While i am pro gun, like most things i like to look at both sides of the debate and make my mind up regarding pro and anti gun arguments.

If guns are outlawed, the bad guys will buy them illegally. If they can't buy one, they'll steal it. If they can neither steal nor buy one, they'll figure out how to make one. Laws only affect those who are inclined to obey them
Click to expand...

That's not a good argument for pro gun, follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some people will ignore and brake them. Some people should not have firearms legally violent criminals etc. The fact that they can obtain them illegally is not a good reason to have no restrictions on them being able to walk into a shop and legally buy a firearm. Just like saying there is no point in having drink laws, because as we all know some will drink and drive anyway.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Look at England where strict gun control led to an increase of attacks with knives that they are going after them
What evidence do you have that strict gun control in the UK led to increased knife crime. ? The fact that no one has carried firearms in England Scotland and Wales for self defence for probably near 100 years, so i don't see how that would effect modern day knife in the UK. Crime is crime does it matter if its knife crime or gun crime. Lets deal in facts there are around 50 firearms related murders in the UK each compared with around 8,000 in America, lets not point to other countries like every things OK in America, and there are no issues.
Click to expand...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/07/18/uk-knife-attacks-are-surging-n2026497
Gun ownership is an alien concept with our British cousins across the Atlantic, but that doesn’t mean that violent crime has been reduced. In fact, with no guns readily available, though there are gun crimes in the UK, knives seem to be the weapon of choice. This isn't surprising. The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.
Click to expand...

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04304

Homicide

There were 213 homicides using a sharp instrument in 2015/16, accounting for 37% of all homicides. This was an increase from 186 cases in 2014/15 (36% of all homicides).
Knife crime by police force area

London recorded the highest rate of 114 offences involving a knife per 100,000 population[1] in 2015/16. This was a decrease of 41 offences from 156 per 100,000 people in 2010/11. Surrey had the lowest rate of 6 offences per 100,000 individuals.
Click to expand...

And then there are the acid attacks:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40559973

Gang members know there are advantages in using acid to hurt someone rather than a knife because "the charges are more serious if you are caught with a knife and the tariff for prison sentences are much higher".
It is legal to purchase strong acid but there have been growing calls for regulations to be tightened in the wake of recent incidents.
Click to expand...

Just like guns and knives - let's regulate the tool instead of prosecuting the attacker, because it might offend some special group.

If those aren't enough, Google will find you more.....
 
Since we have talked about guns and knives,etc.

Giving credibility to the Tueller concept...That a bad guy with a knife might stick me before I can respond with my handgun, And assuming he got me ;If I am armed,I can at least hope I will fall on a pile of my own hot brass.


https://youtu.be/93PBNHXXWWs
 
Last edited:
Gun ownership is an alien concept with our British cousins across the Atlantic, but that doesn’t mean that violent crime has been reduced. In fact, with no guns readily available, though there are gun crimes in the UK, knives seem to be the weapon of choice. This isn't surprising. The rise in knife attacks has been in the UK press since 2008–and they’ve increased by 13 percent since last year
Click to expand...


There are plenty of firearms in the UK, its a myth that there is not. There are plenty in this small part of the UK for example, you have to take into account the firearms culture is different here than in America, for example 98% of firearms are owned by males.
PS I i am not getting into a stats fight as we all know people pick the stats to back their side, and plenty can be found to contradict their stats lifes to short.

We have analysed detailed information provided on each of the 59,585 people living in Northern Ireland who currently hold firearms licences.
We found that almost 60,000 members of the public own over 146,000 firearms with the remaining 7,018 legally-held guns belonging to serving police and prison officers.A total of 2,924 licenses have 'Personal Protection Weapon' among the conditions of use. These holders include ex-PSNI, civilians and prison officers.
Click to expand...
 
The logical argument I hold for easy access to firearms is it allows the "little old lady" to have a near equal ability to defend herself as the body builder. A firearm is the ultimate statement in equality because it overcomes most natural physical advantages an attacker may have due to gender, age, or general health.

Besides the right to effective self defense is a basic human right and is an individual right not to be turned over to to the state. The state may augment that right but it must not supersede it.
 
I appreciate all the input from you. And I also feel grateful for the (relative...) respect you feel towards each other and don't lash out at each other as I have seen in many other places.

While I feel that I know what kind of society I would like to see and how it could be made, and in that I include the right of every person and citizen to be able to defend himself and his family, I also feel that it's VERY difficult to have such world view where I live, with the almost impossible and irrational fear that most people seem to feel towards guns and weapons. It seems that the worst places for these tendencies actually are in the countries that ought to be most grateful for weapons. The countries that have managed to keep a peace for a relatively long time. But the citizens have been dozing off in their material comfort and illusional safety brought by a Strong State that makes you believe that it will keep you safe no matter what. But we need to remind ourselves that the basic safety and security must come from ourselves, not from an outside party. But with the exception of the need to keep together to fend off unfairness and people with ill intent. I just need to ventilate my mind a bit from these unreasonable ideas that seem to perpetuate even in the US that everything should be controlled by the State, "becuase it's good for you"... Ok, enough of the rant. Time for bed in my time zone...
 
manta49 said:
. . . .
Spats McGee said:
Chicago should be an anti-gunner's dream city, filled with peace love and happiness. However, the FBI's uniform crime statistics do not bear this out. It's been a while since I looked at those numbers, but (if memory serves) Chicago has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. By comparison, I think Dallas or Houston have looser crime laws and lower crime rates. We have to be careful of causation, so we cannot safely say "more guns led to lower crime rates," but we can safely say that "stricter gun laws did not lead to lower crime rates."
Click to expand...
Do you really think all the problems in Chicago are just down to firearms policies, i would think there are a lot of issues in Chicago gangs unemployment drugs etc. While i am pro gun, like most things i like to look at both sides of the debate and make my mind up regarding pro and anti gun arguments.
Click to expand...
Had you read my post carefully, you would realize that I did not say that "the problems in Chicago are just down to firearms policies." I've made it somewhat simpler by highlighting the part of my post that makes that point clear.


manta49 said:
. . . .
Spats McGee said:
If guns are outlawed, the bad guys will buy them illegally. If they can't buy one, they'll steal it. If they can neither steal nor buy one, they'll figure out how to make one. Laws only affect those who are inclined to obey them
Click to expand...
That's not a good argument for pro gun, follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some people will ignore and brake them. Some people should not have firearms legally violent criminals etc. The fact that they can obtain them illegally is not a good reason to have no restrictions on them being able to walk into a shop and legally buy a firearm. Just like saying there is no point in having drink laws, because as we all know some will drink and drive anyway.
Click to expand...
If taken to its logical extreme, that might be true, but it's not necessarily true. The comparison to DWI laws is downright silly. There is no right, constitutional, statutory, or otherwise, to drink and drive. Nor is there any need to drink and drive. The right or need to own the weapons to defend one's own life is quite a different matter.
 
This thread is not intended to be a discussion of knife or acid attack laws. Going further down that road will lead to infractions.
 
As long as everyone gives up their guns including criminals, security forces, the police, the military, those protecting politicians, and the politicians I’m willing to give up mine. If guns are inherently evil and dangerous than entrusting them to anyone seems to be a logical flaw
 
As long as everyone gives up their guns including criminals, security forces, the police, the military, those protecting politicians, and the politicians I’m willing to give up mine.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....let me think about that for a bit.............

Nope. Still not gonna. :D

P.S. I suspect you were just having fun with me anyway.
 
johnwilliamson:

If you are going to cite John Lott be prepared to address some of the issues with his research related to accusation he fabricated data.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning your intent,but the way this is presented ...I have a problem.Its vague and incomplete.It resembles smear propaganda. You give no source or specifics.

The casual reader will think "Hmm,John Lotts work is flawed and discredited" but they will not do the research to dig up and read the back story. It resembles a fake news cheap shot.

I'm not inclined to do research to validate something that you have not validated yourself. And please,no "Google it"
I request that you google it,post who made the claim,what the claim was,etc.
or I'm afraid I must dismiss your comment as "fabricated data"
 
But the citizens have been dozing off in their material comfort and illusional safety brought by a Strong State that makes you believe that it will keep you safe no matter what. But we need to remind ourselves that the basic safety and security must come from ourselves, not from an outside party.
Click to expand...

Very well said. The illusion of freedom and safety under the watchful eye of a strong and benevolent government is powerful. The American Founding Fathers and thinking people throughout history understood that unless government answers to the people, who are able to limit governmental power, there is neither freedom nor safety. That is still true today. Without the freedom to keep and bear arms we at the mercy of others. Whether those others are good or evil it is dangerous, and it is not liberty.
 
I'm not questioning your intent,but the way this is presented ...I have a problem.Its vague and incomplete.It resembles smear propaganda. You give no source or specifics.
Click to expand...
We are discussing arguments one can take to a civil discussion of educated individuals. What I said is all I believe needs to be said in that context. If someone is too lazy to look up the details of the controversy they shouldn't cite him. He has plenty of good work that isn't directly linked to the controversy. There is a reason he hasn't published much in the last two decades.

The basics show up in his wikipedia article. It has been covered here before. If someone is too lazy to look up the details that is not my problem. There are pages and pages. Really, anyone at all interested in the RKBA discussion should be aware. Bring up John Lott to an educated anti-gunner and you'd better be prepared for them to try and jam it back down your throat. Many of the other posters in this thread who posted are aware of his work. I considered suggesting his work. My guess is the others decided not to for the same reason I didn't. They would prefer not to drag his baggage into any arguments.
Most people don't believe he performed an extensive survey, lost all records of it in a series of events, can not remember the names any of the graduate students involved in the survey, none of those graduate students were willing to come forward on their own, etc. Whether he did it or not, it is a big pile of baggage that contaminates all of his work.

His decision to register a pseudonym claiming to be a prior student and defend himself believing the faux anonymity of the internet would protect his true identity was just foolish early internet folly. Laughable, but also forgivable.

Fraud in research is more common then many want to believe, especially fabricating or simulating expensive and time consuming test/survey results. Lazy grad students sometimes fabricate results without their employers knowledge. Sometimes people pay to attach their names to research or come to be attached by some other agreement and really have nothing to do with the research, then get burned when the person performing research gets lazy. I sat at lunch with several faculty of a research institution one afternoon where they openly discussed how they were manipulating their current research in order to receive funding for continuation research when it was done. Mostly by choosing clearly incorrect statistical methods. One of those 'do they realize I am here at the table?' moments. Research was their job. They needed to make sure that at the end of their current project they had a lead in to another project in order to pay their mortgages.
 
Last edited:
HiBC:
My interpretation? A nut job * walked into a Walmart to run up a body count,a wolf among sheep.No telling how many he would have killed before police could respond .As he killed the third,he notices armed citizens drawing lawfully held concealed weapons. OOPS! Now he is NOT a wolf among sheep.
He stops killing and walks away. Response time,seconds.Results:Killing stopped. Threat over...Armed citizens ,responsibly,did not fire a shot.
Click to expand...

Whether or not HiBC's interpretation of the event (that the shooter was frightened away by the sight of defensive weaponry) is correct or not, the fact remains that the often-seen (on crime scene video) behavior of a shooter wandering aimlessly through a public space and shooting unarmed victims was NOT going to happen in this case. The lawfully carrying citizens would have delayed/deterred/driven off the shooter even if those citizens were only defending themselves. This is not theoretical speculation. I have found no video evidence anywhere of a criminal or mass-shooter advancing into the face of defensive gunfire. You won't either.

Ordinary_Guy, you ask if "a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society".

To your main inquiry, I would say that:
1. No society is perfectly just nor perfectly safe.
2. Allowing ALL citizens the capability to use the most efficient means to defend themselves and their family members when confronted by unsafe or unjust situations (whether criminal / ad hoc or institutional) creates a baseline expectation of all citizens that they can control their own lives and that to some degree the community they build and inhabit is beholden to them and they are not dependent on a society that might be hostile to them.

I'm painting in broad strokes, but I'm trying to point out the fundamental empowerment that firearm ownership entails. Not everyone might feel that they need that type of empowerment; fair enough. Not always is that type of empowerment required to be exercised in any society:true. However, a society that feels its citizens are capable of owning and responsibly using that type of basic empowerment would seem to have a higher regard for the value and capabilities of each of its citizens. This level of appreciation of the value of each citizen would seem a good foundation for ordering a just society.
 
if you can find some GOOD sources of research with the indications that a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there are any, and I'm not certain the premise is sound, to begin with. Before I could agree with "safer and just" I'd have to know what is meant by those terms. And then I'd have to decide if a "pro-gun" society would actually bring that about. I can think of no historical example where a pro-gun attitude in society (meaning personal arms are tolerated and approved of) where that single factor brought about a "safer and just society" all by itself.

I think a pro-gun attitude allows for a safer and just society, but it takes more than that to actually create and maintain that society. Just as it takes much more than an anti-gun attitude to create an maintain a safe and just society.

Studies are wonderful things, but both sides do them, both sides come up with results that support their viewpoints, and both sides attack the other side's studies as inaccurate, incorrect, and irrelevant.

I think the only "study" that matters in this argument is the study of history. One doesn't have to even look deeply, its there to be seen, our entire history has been one of armed men oppressing unarmed men. Guns, or swords, or clubs or just disparity of force, those are a matter of technique.

Anyone who thinks that simply removing guns from the equation makes us safe is #1) ignoring the brutality that happened during of thousands of years where the sword, spear, bow, and axe were the tools, and guns didn't even exist. And, #2) they ought to go spend some time in a prison, (where there are no guns other than in the hands of the guards), and see how safe they feel there.

Its not the tools that matter, its the people using them.

Firearms do not guarantee a successful result. What they provide is the opportunity. You can't use as gun if you don't have one. But having a gun doesn't mean you will win, it means you might.

Sure, its a slogan, but its still true, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

And who shows up when the police to get there? People with guns!!! If guns aren't a good thing, why do the police have them???

There is almost nothing on this earth that cannot be put to an evil use by the mind of man. Evil is not a concept that ought to be ascribed to an inanimate object.
 
Guns and the monopolization of the use of force by the government have something in common: when they are used by good men and women for the betterment of society they are fine. When they are used for evil intent they are not.

I don't like monopolization of anything.
 
ordinary guy said:
While I feel that I know what kind of society I would like to see and how it could be made,...
Click to expand...

To the degree you are posing a question about the society and not about guns, your inquiry may be about the differences in a society in which individuals retain power and rights against their neighbors and the state. A society of empowered individuals will have characteristics distinguishable from a society in which they don't.

If an individual has a right to speak, even when he is offensive, and to employ really effective force in his defense, and to travel and associate more or less as he pleases with the consent of others, a collection of those individuals may recognise that and act accordingly. That has a lot of implications for society.

A good friend is greek, big and genuinely dangerous with his hands. As a young man, he vacationed in the islands doing things young men do and fighting in bars (discoteques). He was horrified to learn that americans can carry firearms. "But then if I start a fight over a girl, the other guy could pull out a gun and kill me!" (as if it never occurred to him not to hurt someone).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top