Gun Control

[venomai]

Apparently you don't when you think that by targeting self-defense seekers and making them anti-gun, you will solve this excess homicide issue.

 

Like I said: I agree that there is a difference between wanting a gun to commit a crime and wanting a gun for self-defense, even though there may be some overlap between the two. That, however, does not mean I agree with those using guns as self-defense.

 

 

 

So you go to the extreme of using pens ... for your argument?

 

Extreme analogies are effective analogies. :)

 

 

 

in terms of lethality plus the criminal intent, I don't think there would be that much of a change. For the millionth time, look at the world pre-gun invention.

 

Why do you continue to bring up this point? It's irrelevant.

 

 

 

Things were wildly different in the distant past. Surgery was almost non-existent and societies were far less "civil" -- justice was met by murder, not courts and law. Showing a high homicide rate in the past/present says nothing about whether or not less lethal weapons tend to lead to less lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

Why not look at the present? Today, even in America, knives are used in many violent crimes, and often with much different outcomes[1]. When we compare stab wounds to gunshot wounds, it becomes clear that victims of stab wounds have a much lower mortality rate than victims of gunshot wounds[2][3]. In other words; those attacked by knives tend to have a higher "survival rate" than those attacked by guns (simply because gunshot wounds are so much more destructive to vital organs than stab wounds).

 

 

 

*Hides behind Danger's link* There! Now I win!

 

Again; Danger's link, for the most part, does not go against my claims.

 

 

 

"Your statistics are from an anti-gun party so they are meaningless to me." See, I can do it too.

 

Where did I say anything of the sort? In fact, I agree with many of the statistics in Danger's link, even if there is a clear bias.

 

 

 

And which of my statistics are biased toward anti-gun parties?

 

 

 

Why is it so difficult to grasp that people don't buy and load guns for no reason at all?

 

Nobody is saying people buy guns for no reason at all...

 

 

 

Whether or not it is true that people who purchase firearms do so with the intent to kill, it is clear that the vast majority of them do not follow through with this intent when faced with a clear opportunity to do so (regardless of the weapon used).

 

 

 

It's ignorant to assume that guns are the root of the homicide problem. What about changes in society? Increased population? The media? Take guns out of the equation and murder is still murder.

 

Guns are not the "root of murder." People kill people without guns, as I've said hundreds of times. Guns are, however, at the root of higher rates of homicide for the simple reason that more lethal weapons tend to result in more lethal outcomes. There are a number of factors that contribute to higher rates of homicide in a given country, and the lethality of the weapons used is but one of them.

 

 

 

The problem? You mean murder?

 

The problem is America's incredibly high homicide rate compared to other nations. I thought this much was obvious, considering the sheer number of pages we've been discussing the very subject.

 

 

 

It's better than wanting to make things worse by letting criminals have weapons but leaving the innocent poor defenseless targets. You bad bad man!

 

You still assume that (a) "criminals will always get guns," regardless of a change in availability, and (B) "without guns, citizens cannot defend themselves." As we've discussed, these assumptions are incorrect.

[Zierro]

Like I said: I agree that there is a difference between wanting a gun to commit a crime and wanting a gun for self-defense, even though there may be some overlap between the two. That, however, does not mean I agree with those using guns as self-defense.

 

 

 

You distinguish the difference between the problem and the counter to the problem, but you don't agree with the counter? Maybe you got things backwards.

 

 

 

Extreme analogies are effective analogies.

 

 

 

That doesn't dismiss the fact that pens are crappy weapons and knives aren't. The difference between a knife and a gun are not nearly as substantial as the difference between a pen and a knife.

 

 

 

Things were wildly different in the distant past. Surgery was almost non-existent and societies were far less "civil" -- justice was met by murder, not courts and law. Showing a high homicide rate in the past/present says nothing about whether or not less lethal weapons tend to lead to less lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

Thanks for bringing up reasons for committing murder without even mentioning guns. :D Now you see where I'm coming from.

 

 

 

Why not look at the present? Today, even in America, knives are used in many violent crimes, and often with much different outcomes[1]. When we compare stab wounds to gunshot wounds, it becomes clear that victims of stab wounds have a much lower mortality rate than victims of gunshot wounds[2][3]. In other words; those attacked by knives tend to have a higher "survival rate" than those attacked by guns (simply because gunshot wounds are so much more destructive to vital organs than stab wounds).

 

 

 

Or better yet - the future which can sometimes be predicted by studying the past and present.

 

 

 

And I've been over this. If someone chooses a knife rather than a gun then they are picking a less lethal weapon, correct? That means their intentions of murdering aren't as strong as the person who picked the gun. When guns aren't an option though, knives will move up in the pedestal and the more serious criminals will be using them and trying to make them fulfill their intentions. It's really just commonsense.

 

 

 

Again; Danger's link, for the most part, does not go against my claims.

 

 

 

Ok, neither do yours.

 

 

 

Where did I say anything of the sort? In fact, I agree with many of the statistics in Danger's link, even if there is a clear bias.

 

 

 

And which of my statistics are biased toward anti-gun parties?

 

 

 

Don't mind me. Just using an extreme and absurd analogy to further my point. I thought that was okay.

 

 

 

Nobody is saying people buy guns for no reason at all...

 

 

 

Whether or not it is true that people who purchase firearms do so with the intent to kill, it is clear that the vast majority of them do not follow through with this intent when faced with a clear opportunity to do so (regardless of the weapon used).

 

 

 

This is irrelevant. Again, we're talking about the homicide problem. My point is that if someone is trying to murder someone then they obviously have the intent to do so. Give them a less lethal weapon, and if they really want to kill you, they will just try harder to make the ends justify the means. You keep bringing up the people who aren't the ones that have anything to do with the homicide problem. I know that not every gun wielder killed someone before. I told you there is a difference between self-defense and homicide. Not everyone's intentions for having guns are the same - but for those who try to kill their victims they are all aiming for the same thing - a successful murder.

 

 

 

Guns are not the "root of murder." People kill people without guns, as I've said hundreds of times. Guns are, however, at the root of higher rates of homicide for the simple reason that more lethal weapons tend to result in more lethal outcomes. There are a number of factors that contribute to higher rates of homicide in a given country, and the lethality of the weapons used is but one of them.

 

 

 

Switzerland has tons of gun owners. So does America. Gun crime in America is far far far more prevalent than in Switzerland. That means it comes down to society not the lethality of the weapons. This is what I'm talking about when I say there are other factors to this homicide issue other than guns. Maybe there is more of a reason to commit crime in America than Switzerland. How do you suggest we fix that?

 

 

 

The problem is America's incredibly high homicide rate compared to other nations. I thought this much was obvious, considering the sheer number of pages we've been discussing the very subject.

 

 

 

And as I've pointed out, that has little to do with the guns and more to do with the differences in societies.

 

 

 

You still assume that (a) "criminals will always get guns," regardless of a change in availability, and (B) "without guns, citizens cannot defend themselves." As we've discussed, these assumptions are incorrect.

 

 

 

A.) Criminals will always get guns unless you do something revolutionary to fix that. So far no good. Again, I'm not being cynical - just being realistic.

 

 

 

B.) Without guns citizens cannot defend themselves as effectively.* Come on now. You can't have the best of both worlds. Either say guns aren't as lethal as you claim they are or say that they really are that lethal - meaning they are effective for self-defense.

[venomai]

You distinguish the difference between the problem and the counter to the problem, but you don't agree with the counter?

 

Correct. I don't view it as an effective means of countering the problem.

 

 

 

That doesn't dismiss the fact that pens are crappy weapons and knives aren't.

 

Compared to a gun, a knife is also a "crappy weapon."

 

 

 

Thanks for bringing up reasons for committing murder without even mentioning guns.

 

Again, you've ignored my points and given me something completely unrelated. I've acknowledged many times now that murder occurs without guns.

 

 

 

If someone chooses a knife rather than a gun then they are picking a less lethal weapon, correct?

 

The majority of criminals using knives over guns do so not because they "pick and choose" the less lethal weapon, but because the less lethal weapon is more readily available to them (or, simply, more suited to the crime).

 

 

 

When guns aren't an option though, knives will move up in the pedestal and the more serious criminals will be using them and trying to make them fulfill their intentions. It's really just commonsense.

 

I agree -- it is commonsense -- this is the "substitution effect" that we have been discussing for the past several pages. It's also commonsense that, with less lethal weapons, the outcomes of the crimes will generally be less lethal, even if the criminals are "trying harder" (which may not always be the case).

 

 

 

Ok, neither do yours.

 

A number of statistics presented in this thread go against your claims, if that is what you mean. Most of your claims, though, such as "criminals will always get guns," can be refuted without resorting to statistics.

 

 

 

Just using an extreme and absurd analogy to further my point.

 

I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what analogy means.

 

 

 

My point is that if someone is trying to murder someone then they obviously have the intent to do so. Give them a less lethal weapon, and if they really want to kill you, they will just try harder to make the ends justify the means.

 

Give a robber a baseball bat instead of a gun. Although he may use more force in an attack, perhaps even hitting the victim multiple times (i.e. "trying harder"), in neither case will he "meet the ends" by ensuring the victim's death (even when there is a clear opportunity to do so).

 

 

 

You keep bringing up the people who aren't the ones that have anything to do with the homicide problem.

 

Robberies, domestic violence, etc. have a lot to do with the homicide problem.

 

 

 

... but for those who try to kill their victims they are all aiming for the same thing - a successful murder.

 

While this may be true in premeditated murder, it isn't necessarily true in robberies, self-defense (justified and unjustified), assault, etc.

 

 

 

Switzerland has tons of gun owners. So does America. Gun crime in America is far far far more prevalent than in Switzerland. That means it comes down to society not the lethality of the weapons. This is what I'm talking about when I say there are other factors to this homicide issue other than guns. Maybe there is more of a reason to commit crime in America than Switzerland.

 

Regarding the Swiss:

 

 

 

[hide=]Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

 

 

 

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

 

 

 

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

 

 

 

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics...[/hide]

 

Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

 

 

 

The same site has a great essay explaining the relation between gun ownership and America's high homicide rate[1]. It highlights many of the points that I've argued over the past several pages, and examines plenty of statistics. Well worth a read.

 

 

 

Criminals will always get guns unless you do something revolutionary to fix that.

 

Reduced availability is not revolutionary or unrealistic. In fact, we've already seen it happen in various states across the United States, not to mention other nations.

 

 

 

Either say guns aren't as lethal as you claim they are or say that they really are that lethal - meaning they are effective for self-defense.

 

Guns certainly can be effective for self-defense. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean they are worth implementing for self-defense.

[Zierro]

Correct. I don't view it as an effective means of countering the problem.

 

 

 

Might as well have policemen armed with nightsticks only then.

 

 

 

Compared to a gun, a knife is also a "crappy weapon."

 

 

 

No, knives are actually pretty lethal. ;)

 

 

 

Again, you've ignored my points and given me something completely unrelated. I've acknowledged many times now that murder occurs without guns.

 

 

 

Again, you fail to see my point. If you agree that murder occurs without guns then why do you target guns only? You are the one who keeps repeating that we're talking about guns - not violence.

 

 

 

The majority of criminals using knives over guns do so not because they "pick and choose" the less lethal weapon, but because the less lethal weapon is more readily available to them (or, simply, more suited to the crime).

 

 

 

You can say that, and I can say criminals like to look before they leap. It's not like criminals try to rob the bank with pens because they are readily available.

 

 

 

I agree -- it is commonsense -- this is the "substitution effect" that we have been discussing for the past several pages. It's also commonsense that, with less lethal weapons, the outcomes of the crimes will generally be less lethal, even if the criminals are "trying harder" (which may not always be the case).

 

 

 

Hmm looks like our commonsenses collide.

 

 

 

A number of statistics presented in this thread go against your claims, if that is what you mean. Most of your claims, though, such as "criminals will always get guns," can be refuted without resorting to statistics.

 

 

 

No, your refutes can be refuted with "there are differences between societies".

 

 

 

I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what analogy means.

 

 

 

1 is to 2 as A is to B. Your statistics are just like mine since we both don't see them as refutes to our arguments. There you go again criticizing me about getting off track then doing so yourself.

 

 

 

Give a robber a baseball bat instead of a gun. Although he may use more force in an attack, perhaps even hitting the victim multiple times (i.e. "trying harder"), in neither case will he "meet the ends" by ensuring the victim's death (even when there is a clear opportunity to do so).

 

 

 

Baseball bat =/= Knife

 

 

 

Knife wounds are far more lethal because of blood loss and such. Plus knives are easily concealed, etc.

 

 

 

Robberies, domestic violence, etc. have a lot to do with the homicide problem.

 

 

 

Yeah, if you are talking about intentional murders then you are correct.

 

 

 

While this may be true in premeditated murder, it isn't necessarily true in robberies, self-defense (justified and unjustified), assault, etc.

 

 

 

Robberies aren't planned out? Hmm?

 

 

 

Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

 

 

 

The same site has a great essay explaining the relation between gun ownership and America's high homicide rate[1]. It highlights many of the points that I've argued over the past several pages, and examines plenty of statistics. Well worth a read.

 

 

 

I hope it would work with America. The only problem is that our cultures are completely different. It's not like we can start over from scratch. The economy, media, black market, government, gangs, etc. are all factors contributing to the problem.

 

 

 

Reduced availability is not revolutionary or unrealistic. In fact, we've already seen it happen in various states across the United States, not to mention other nations.

 

 

 

Just reducing it is winning a battle - not the war. Sorry and say I don't have a soul or whatever you will, but as a normal guy I don't see a few statistics changing as an answer to our prayers at all. I believe that there are even better ideas somewhere out there to prevent unnecessary deaths. I'm trying to talk big here.

 

 

 

Guns certainly can be effective for self-defense. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean they are worth implementing for self-defense.

 

 

 

:?:

[venomai]

Might as well have policemen armed with nightsticks only then.

 

Just because I am against firearm self-defense for citizens doesn't mean I wish to remove firearms from security forces.

 

 

 

No, knives are actually pretty lethal.

 

Note the emphasis. Compared to a gun, knives tend to be far less lethal weapons.

 

 

 

If you agree that murder occurs without guns then why do you target guns only? You are the one who keeps repeating that we're talking about guns - not violence.

 

Why would an anti-tobacco campaign target cigarettes if people die from tobacco-related diseases (e.g. lung cancer) without their use? Quite simply, because tobacco-related deaths are preventable.

 

 

 

It's not like criminals try to rob the bank with pens because they are readily available.

 

Exactly -- they generally pick the most lethal weapon that is readily available to them.

 

 

 

No, your refutes can be refuted with "there are differences between societies".

 

Thanks for stating the obvious, but this doesn't refute anything. Regardless of differences between societies, reduced demand for firearms in America will lead to reduced availability. This is simple economics.

 

 

 

Knife wounds are far more lethal because of blood loss and such. Plus knives are easily concealed, etc.

 

In other words: knives are more lethal than baseball bats. Likewise, since guns are more lethal than knives (due to, among other things, their range, ease-of-use, speed and severe damage to vital organs), their use generally leads to more lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

Robberies aren't planned out? Hmm?

 

Although the robbery may be premeditated, a resulting murder rarely is.

 

 

 

The only problem is that our cultures are completely different. It's not like we can start over from scratch. The economy, media, black market, government, gangs, etc. are all factors contributing to the problem.

 

Of course. The same can be said against, say, marijuana law reform. These are obstacles that we will have to overcome.

 

 

 

Sorry and say I don't have a soul or whatever you will, but as a normal guy I don't see a few statistics changing as an answer to our prayers at all. I believe that there are even better ideas somewhere out there to prevent unnecessary deaths. I'm trying to talk big here.

 

And until those ideas arise, we should continue fighting problems like racism, drug addiction and drunk driving as we are now; through changes in society and law. Sitting around on our [wagon] all day waiting for "something big" to come up will get us nowhere.

[purfishx]

Wow, this ZierroxVenomai argument is epic. :shock:

[Zierro]

Just because I am against firearm self-defense for citizens doesn't mean I wish to remove firearms from security forces.

 

 

 

Why is that? Sure, allowing security forces to have them isn't as risky but there are some cops that have been known to abuse this privilege. I think guns should be regulated carefully to those who want them for self-defense. What do cops have to do to have their guns? Pass a few tests and go through training. I don't see how that's much different from strict regulation for your Average Joes. Cops used to be Average Joes too after all.

 

 

 

Note the emphasis. Compared to a gun, knives tend to be far less lethal weapons.

 

 

 

How many deaths are pens responsible for? My guess is not too many at all. :lol: Comparing a knife to a gun isn't the same as comparing a pen to a knife. Knives and guns are both commonly used murder weapons and are usually successful.

 

 

 

This is like when you used butter knives as an example about why you think intimidation has nothing to do with psychology. If someone pulls a knife on you, I think their intentions are clear. Let me ask you something. If someone got angry at you and pulled their knife out on you, what would you do? Now compare that to what you would do if they pulled out a pen. My point is that guns and knives have a lot more in common in this context than knives and pens do. A knife is a lethal weapon.

 

 

 

Why would an anti-tobacco campaign target cigarettes if people die from tobacco-related diseases (e.g. lung cancer) without their use? Quite simply, because tobacco-related deaths are preventable.

 

 

 

Drug, car, and knife deaths are completely inevitable then?

 

 

 

Thanks for stating the obvious, but this doesn't refute anything. Regardless of differences between societies, reduced demand for firearms in America will lead to reduced availability. This is simple economics.

 

 

 

Regardless of the differences...? Wait a second. You can't just throw the differences out the window here. It's ignorant to assume that there are no other factors that contribute to this. As I've said before, the media, gangs, drugs, government, culture, etc. all have to do with the problem because when it comes to the supply and demand, America isn't much different from Switzerland. The only difference is that we have different lifestyles.

 

 

 

In other words: knives are more lethal than baseball bats. Likewise, since guns are more lethal than knives (due to, among other things, their range, ease-of-use, speed and severe damage to vital organs), their use generally leads to more lethal outcomes.

 

 

 

I'm still standing beside what I said. I believe that if a criminal wants someone dead, they are going to try harder if they are given a less lethal weapon. This might not be the case for every murder or attempted murder, but I'm sure it's not as small of a deal as you're making it out to be.

 

 

 

Although the robbery may be premeditated, a resulting murder rarely is.

 

 

 

So the murder was an accident? :-k I don't think you understand me. If a criminal obtains and loads a gun, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger (purposely and consciously) - I'm pretty sure that's saying, "I want you dead".

 

 

 

And until those ideas arise, we should continue fighting problems like racism, drug addiction and drunk driving as we are now; through changes in society and law. Sitting around on our [wagon] all day waiting for "something big" to come up will get us nowhere.

 

 

 

I didn't mean we should wait; I meant we should come up with more effective ideas. Something that doesn't scream, "Come get me criminals! I'm innocent and defenseless!"

 

 

 

Guns certainly can be effective for self-defense. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean they are worth implementing for self-defense.

 

 

 

Looks like my :?: didn't suffice since you never expanded on this. I'll just say that you sound very contradictory. Are you saying you want ineffective self-defense available?

[venomai]

Why is that? Sure, allowing security forces to have them isn't as risky but there are some cops that have been known to abuse this privilege. I think guns should be regulated carefully to those who want them for self-defense. What do cops have to do to have their guns? Pass a few tests and go through training. I don't see how that's much different from strict regulation for your Average Joes. Cops used to be Average Joes too after all.

 

Now you're arguing in favour of gun control. I too would like to see stricter measures on who gets handguns and who doesn't, even in the police force.

 

 

 

How many deaths are pens responsible for? My guess is not too many at all. :lol: Comparing a knife to a gun isn't the same as comparing a pen to a knife. Knives and guns are both commonly used murder weapons and are usually successful

 

 

 

(a) This is like when you used butter knives as an example about why you think intimidation has nothing to do with psychology. (B) If someone pulls a knife on you, I think their intentions are clear. Let me ask you something. © If someone got angry at you and pulled their knife out on you, what would you do? (d) Now compare that to what you would do if they pulled out a pen. My point is that guns and knives have a lot more in common in this context than knives and pens do. A knife is a lethal weapon.

 

(a) Intimidation is almost entirely psychological. I don't know why you think I'm arguing otherwise.

 

(B) Not really. They could want your wallet, or they could want to kill you, or they could want to get information out of you.

 

© I would probably try to talk them out of it, and if that didn't work, I would probably run like hell.

 

(d) I'd obviously be much less intimidated, but I'd still do the same as in ©.

 

 

 

Like I said: swap a pen for a pipe, baseball bat or even a knife and my argument remains the same. Although guns and knives are both "lethal weapons," guns tend to be far more lethal than knives, which, in turn, leads to their higher rate of mortality. For example, in the study I linked to earlier, stab wounds to the heart were not fatal the majority of the time, whereas gunshot wounds to the heart were fatal the vast majority of the time. This article cites that "Missile injuries to the heart ... are more lethal [than stab wounds], with 11% of victims arriving at the trauma center alive compared to 40% of cardiac stab wound victims arriving alive (20).

 

 

 

Drug, car, and knife deaths are completely inevitable then?

 

No. Many drug, car and knife related deaths are also considered "preventable." And, as such, there are many movements attempting to reduce their numbers, often successfully.

 

 

 

Regardless of the differences...? Wait a second. You can't just throw the differences out the window here. It's ignorant to assume that there are no other factors that contribute to this. As I've said before, the media, gangs, drugs, government, culture, etc. all have to do with the problem because when it comes to the supply and demand, America isn't much different from Switzerland. The only difference is that we have different lifestyles.

 

We're talking about America here. Although there are a number of factors that can affect demand and availability, lower demand of a product in America generally leads lower availability of that product in America. This is the nature of a capitalist-driven market.

 

 

 

I'm still standing beside what I said. I believe that if a criminal wants someone dead, they are going to try harder if they are given a less lethal weapon.

 

I agree that criminals may "try harder" with less lethal weapons, but this doesn't mean that the outcomes will be the same.

 

 

 

(a) So the murder was an accident? :-k (B) I don't think you understand me. © If a criminal obtains and loads a gun, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger (purposely and consciously) - I'm pretty sure that's saying, "I want you dead".

 

(a) No. Simply because a murder wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it was accidental.

 

(B) I do, fully.

 

© Most robbers don't walk into a store and shoot the clerk. With that said, it doesn't matter what thoughts are running through the criminal's head at the moment they pull the trigger. The point is: rarely are they following through with their intentions. Often they will shoot or stab their victim to ensure incapacitation, but rarely will they do so to ensure death. Murder is not in the interest of most criminals.

 

 

 

I didn't mean we should wait; I meant we should come up with more effective ideas. Something that doesn't scream, "Come get me criminals! I'm innocent and defenseless!"

 

Here's a brilliant idea: how about you use something other than a handgun for defense? :idea: Just like, you know, the rest of the industrialized world...

 

 

 

Are you saying you want ineffective self-defense available?

 

I want to see the most effective means of self-defense that is not detrimental to the rest of society.

[Zierro]

Now you're arguing in favour of gun control. I too would like to see stricter measures on who gets handguns and who doesn't, even in the police force.

 

 

 

If you don't recall some of my earliest posts, I was always in favor of the strict filters. I always thought we should be able to use guns for self-defense too though.

 

 

 

(a) Intimidation is almost entirely psychological. I don't know why you think I'm arguing otherwise.

 

 

 

Because I was giving you reasons why people are just as easily intimidated by knives and you disagreed.

 

 

 

(B) Not really. They could want your wallet, or they could want to kill you, or they could want to get information out of you.

 

 

 

I was talking more in broad terms. "Whoa, this man has a knife out on me - he's serious!"

 

 

 

© I would probably try to talk them out of it, and if that didn't work, I would probably run like hell.

 

 

 

Not everyone can handle that the same way. Not everyone has the cool nerve to negotiate during a time like that and not everyone can run like hell. That's why old ladies and children are easy targets for criminals.

 

 

 

(d) I'd obviously be much less intimidated, but I'd still do the same as in ©

 

 

 

That's what I was looking for.

 

 

 

Like I said: swap a pen for a pipe, baseball bat or even a knife and my argument remains the same. Although guns and knives are both "lethal weapons," guns tend to be far more lethal than knives, which, in turn, leads to their higher rate of mortality. For example, in the study I linked to earlier, stab wounds to the heart were not fatal the majority of the time, whereas gunshot wounds to the heart were fatal the vast majority of the time. This article cites that "Missile injuries to the heart ... are more lethal [than stab wounds], with 11% of victims arriving at the trauma center alive compared to 40% of cardiac stab wound victims arriving alive (20).

 

 

 

Your only argument is that extra 29%? You can't just say "Guns are 29% worse than knives". #-o That's a linear way of thinking. You have to remember, there are other factors to the story. Criminal intent, knives are easier to conceal and obtain, knives don't make loud noticeable sounds, etc.

 

 

 

No. Many drug, car and knife related deaths are also considered "preventable." And, as such, there are many movements attempting to reduce their numbers, often successfully.

 

 

 

Yeah but you don't see them banning those things - equivalent to your argument that guns are not proper defense because their availability supposedly makes them worse. You might say that you're not in favor of a ban, but that's what it sounds like to me. :?

 

 

 

We're talking about America here. Although there are a number of factors that can affect demand and availability, lower demand of a product in America generally leads lower availability of that product in America. This is the nature of a capitalist-driven market.

 

 

 

America? The same place where the Prohibition happened?

 

 

 

I agree that criminals may "try harder" with less lethal weapons, but this doesn't mean that the outcomes will be the same.

 

 

 

Unless victim can escape, police come in time, or utilize self-defense successfully, then the outcome will be about the same. Usually that's not even the case though.

 

 

 

(a) No. Simply because a murder wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it was accidental.

 

(B) I do, fully.

 

© Most robbers don't walk into a store and shoot the clerk. With that said, it doesn't matter what thoughts are running through the criminal's head at the moment they pull the trigger. The point is: rarely are they following through with their intentions. Often they will shoot or stab their victim to ensure incapacitation, but rarely will they do so to ensure death. Murder is not in the interest of most criminals.

 

 

 

But for the ones who do go through with it, it most certainly is or else they wouldn't do it (with the exception of accidents of course).

 

 

 

Here's a brilliant idea: how about you use something other than a handgun for defense? :idea: Just like, you know, the rest of the industrialized world...

 

 

 

Give the innocent a handicap while you let the criminals roam around with the most lethal weapon they want? Brilliant! :roll:

 

 

 

I want to see the most effective means of self-defense that is not detrimental to the rest of society.

 

 

 

Innocent people dying because they can't defend themselves as sufficiently as criminals can = Detriment to society

[Ginger_Warrior]

Here's a brilliant idea: how about you use something other than a handgun for defense? :idea: Just like, you know, the rest of the industrialized world...

 

 

 

Give the innocent a handicap while you let the criminals roam around with the most lethal weapon they want? Brilliant! :roll:

 

Oh God, now you mention it, the streets outside my house are just swarming with gun wielding maniacs on a mission to commit mass genocide, all because I got no gun to defend myself.

 

 

 

How I did not notice this beforehand completely eludes me.

[venomai]

Because I was giving you reasons why people are just as easily intimidated by knives and you disagreed.

 

In the vast majority of cases, guns are seen as more intimidating than knives. Whether there exists a small minority of people who are more intimidated by knives is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Not everyone can handle that the same way. Not everyone has the cool nerve to negotiate during a time like that and not everyone can run like hell. That's why old ladies and children are easy targets for criminals.

 

And you propose we arm these groups with firearms? We may as well be handing the firearms directly to the criminals...

 

 

 

Your only argument is that extra 29%? You can't just say "Guns are 29% worse than knives". You have to remember, there are other factors to the story Criminal intent, knives are easier to conceal and obtain, knives don't make loud noticeable sounds, etc.

 

Although there are always many factors to consider, on average, guns are more lethal than knives in that they lead to more lethal outcomes. Even with factors such as noise and concealment differences, which would likely contribute to an increase in knife crime mortality, knife crime still generally leads to less lethal outcomes than gun crime.

 

 

 

Yeah but you don't see them banning those things - equivalent to your argument that guns are not proper defense because their availability supposedly makes them worse.

 

Hard drug possession, wreckless driving, and stabbings are all prohibited (banned) by law.

 

 

 

I've said it many times. I'm not in favour of a mere prohibition of all guns. I am in favour of stricter attitude and stricter control, part of which includes a removal of guns from their current position of a "necessary and right-given means of self-defense."

 

 

 

America? The same place where the Prohibition happened?

 

Good example. Demand was not reduced, and neither was availability. In fact, demand and subsequent consumption increased during the prohibition.

 

 

 

Unless victim can escape, police come in time, or utilize self-defense successfully, then the outcome will be about the same.

 

An argument with no rational support at all, and one which ignores all statistics on the subject.

 

 

 

But for the ones who do go through with it, it most certainly is or else they wouldn't do it (with the exception of accidents of course).

 

And, like I've said, the few that "go through with it," in the sense of ensuring the death of their victims, tend to be the exception (i.e. premeditated murders).

 

 

 

Give the innocent a handicap while you let the criminals roam around with the most lethal weapon they want? Brilliant!

 

Hooray for twisting my words, ignoring my points and making yourself look like a fool.

[Hiierarch]

Quite a few of both the above posters' "points" are completely irrelevant. You can control the distribution of legal/registered firearms, and also commercially produced ammunition. There's a large percentage of the total amount of firearms within the USA that are not registered and weren't purchased legally. So let me ask you this, do you think most criminals use registered firearms? Of course not, they acquire them illegally (and when I say illegally I also presume that a percentage of those weapons ARE registered, but are stolen from their original owners) so how does gun control effect them? Gun control would definitely reduce the amount of firearms stolen then in turn used in crimes, but gun control can't reduce imported firearms. Also, gun control laws just hamper honest gun owners and enthusiasts. It's unrealistic to ban them completely.

[Zierro]

Quite a few of both the above posters' "points" are completely irrelevant. You can control the distribution of legal/registered firearms, and also commercially produced ammunition. There's a large percentage of the total amount of firearms within the USA that are not registered and weren't purchased legally. So let me ask you this, do you think most criminals use registered firearms? Of course not, they acquire them illegally (and when I say illegally I also presume that a percentage of those weapons ARE registered, but are stolen from their original owners) so how does gun control effect them? Gun control would definitely reduce the amount of firearms stolen then in turn used in crimes, but gun control can't reduce imported firearms. Also, gun control laws just hamper honest gun owners and enthusiasts. It's unrealistic to ban them completely.

 

 

 

Were you talking about me? One of my arguments was that the black market always exists and by taking away guns, you are only getting rid of the legal guns - self-defense guns. It doesn't make sense because the illegal guns - the guns that are the problem - remained untouched.

 

 

 

 

 

In the vast majority of cases, guns are seen as more intimidating than knives. Whether there exists a small minority of people who are more intimidated by knives is irrelevant.

 

 

 

A murder instrument is a murder instrument. People both know what the intentions of someone who pull either of those two weapons out are. In reality when someone is in a situation like that, people don't have the time to sit there and think to themselves, "Guns are more lethal than knives because according to Venomai's statistics on TIF gunshot wounds cause more homicides than knife wounds, therefore I feel more threatened when I come across a gun". You might as well just say that the majority of people have a phobia of trucks because they are dangerous and lethal as well. You're arguing semantics.

 

 

 

And you propose we arm these groups with firearms? We may as well be handing the firearms directly to the criminals...

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with an old lady having a gun in her house to protect herself and her children.

 

 

 

Although there are always many factors to consider, on average, guns are more lethal than knives in that they lead to more lethal outcomes. Even with factors such as noise and concealment differences, which would likely contribute to an increase in knife crime mortality, knife crime still generally leads to less lethal outcomes than gun crime.

 

 

 

And like I said, even without guns in the equation, there are other factors to consider (how things would be like in the context of not having guns around anymore).

 

 

 

Hard drug possession, wreckless driving, and stabbings are all prohibited (banned) by law.

 

 

 

I've said it many times. I'm not in favour of a mere prohibition of all guns. I am in favour of stricter attitude and stricter control, part of which includes a removal of guns from their current position of a "necessary and right-given means of self-defense."

 

 

 

Hard drug possession, wreckless driving, and stabbings are not equivalent to wanting effective self-defense.

 

 

 

Good example. Demand was not reduced, and neither was availability. In fact, demand and subsequent consumption increased during the prohibition.

 

 

 

So what makes you think guns would be much different?

 

 

 

An argument with no rational support at all, and one which ignores all statistics on the subject.

 

 

 

So you're saying the criminal will just give up in the process of trying to kill their victims?

 

 

 

And, like I've said, the few that "go through with it," in the sense of ensuring the death of their victims, tend to be the exception (i.e. premeditated murders).

 

 

 

Umm, how is purposely making the conscious decision to load your gun, take it to the scene, aim it at someone, and pull the trigger "not going through with it"?

 

 

 

Hooray for twisting my words, ignoring my points and making yourself look like a fool.

 

 

 

Call that twisting words if you want, but I just call it rearranging the pieces to the puzzle.

[Hiierarch]

Zierro, I was agreeing with your side of the argument. The argument about knives versus guns is really irrelevant. Gun Control only hampers the innocent gun owners, and the small percentage of registered gun owners who use those guns to commit crimes. That percentage of people is to minuscule for federal gun control laws to be effective. What the government can do, is strongly enforce and maybe even tighten the restrictions of who they sell firearms to.

[venomai]

So let me ask you this, do you think most criminals use registered firearms? Of course not, they acquire them illegally ... so how does gun control effect them? ... It's unrealistic to ban them completely.

 

Control the primary (regulated) market and the secondary (unregulated) market will have no choice but to follow. Changes in the primary market will lead to changes in the secondary market.

 

 

 

And I am not proposing a mere prohibition of all guns akin to, say, the failures of the American Prohibition or the Drug War.

 

 

 

The argument about knives versus guns is really irrelevant.

 

In what way?

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

People both know what the intentions of someone who pull either of those two weapons out are. In reality when someone is in a situation like that, people don't have the time to sit there and think to themselves, "Guns are more lethal than knives because according to Venomai's statistics on TIF gunshot wounds cause more homicides than knife wounds, therefore I feel more threatened when I come across a gun". You might as well just say that the majority of people have a phobia of trucks because they are dangerous and lethal as well. You're arguing semantics.

 

I'm the one arguing semantics? :lol:

 

 

 

It's a very simple concept: criminals prefer to use guns to intimidate because they are seen as more intimidating weapons by the vast majority of their victims.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with an old lady having a gun in her house to protect herself and her children.

 

Children and the elderly defending themselves with guns? So much for your "strict testing." :lol: These two groups are among those easiest to disarm. Like I said, we may as well be handing guns directly to the criminals.

 

 

 

And like I said, even without guns in the equation, there are other factors to consider (how things would be like in the context of not having guns around anymore).

 

Although there will always be factors that can influence outcomes, and although there are always going to be exceptions, guns are generally much more lethal weapons than knives. What part of this don't you understand?

 

 

 

Hard drug possession, wreckless driving, and stabbings are not equivalent to wanting effective self-defense.

 

Really? I wouldn't have guessed. :roll:

 

 

 

It seems you've already forgotten your last argument (which my earlier statement was directed at).

 

"Yeah but you don't see them banning those things..."

 

 

 

So what makes you think guns would be much different?

 

I'm not proposing a prohibition of guns in the style of the American Prohibition of Alcohol. We've covered this pages ago.

 

 

 

So you're saying the criminal will just give up in the process of trying to kill their victims?

 

Often, the reason many criminals "give up" trying to kill their victim is because murder isn't what they came for. Also, it generally isn't in their interest to have a civilian death on their hands.

 

 

 

As an example, say a carjacker shoots his gun with the intention of seriously harming (perhaps even killing) his victim. The shot misses, but it's enough to scare the victim off, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then chase after the victim and shoot him down? No, not usually. He's there for the car, not the victim.

 

 

 

Now let's say the victim was hit by the bullet. The victim, injured, becomes submissive and falls out of the car and onto the ground, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then shoot and kill the incapacitated victim now lying on the ground? No, not usually. The carjacker gets in the car and drives away. The car, not the victim, is what he came for.

 

 

 

Umm, how is purposely making the conscious decision to load your gun, take it to the scene, aim it at someone, and pull the trigger "not going through with it"?

 

See above. Pulling the trigger may be "going through" with an intent to harm/kill, but rarely do we see the criminal ensuring that this intent is carried through to the fullest (i.e. ensuring the victim's death).

[Zierro]

Control the primary (regulated) market and the secondary (unregulated) market will have no choice but to follow. Changes in the primary market will lead to changes in the secondary market.

 

 

 

Err... no. If the supply for the primary market was cut low then the demand for the secondary market would rise.

 

 

 

And I am not proposing a mere prohibition of all guns akin to, say, the failures of the American Prohibition or the Drug War.

 

 

 

Then what are you proposing? It can't be more strict regulation or else we wouldn't arguing, now would we?

 

 

 

It's a very simple concept: criminals prefer to use guns to intimidate because they will be seen as more intimidating weapons by the vast majority of their victims.

 

 

 

As you've said before, "The majority of criminals using knives over guns do so not because they "pick and choose" the less lethal weapon, but because the less lethal weapon is more readily available to them."

 

 

 

So which one is it? Do criminals pick and choose for specific reasons or not?

 

 

 

Children and the elderly defending themselves with guns? So much for your "strict testing." :lol: These two groups are among those easiest to disarm. Like I said, we may as well be handing guns directly to the criminals.

 

 

 

Mind showing me when I suggested that kids should use guns? I said it was acceptable for an elderly lady to have a gun for protection. Also, you must remember that these two groups are also the ones in need of self-defense the most. And handing guns to criminals? No, I don't think there are many old ladies who can be classified as criminals. They're usually harmless. ;)

 

 

 

There will always be factors that can influence outcomes and there are always going to be exceptions, but guns are on average much more lethal weapons than knives. What part of this don't you understand?

 

 

 

What part don't you understand about, "That's not all there is to it!"?

 

 

 

Really? I wouldn't have guessed. :roll:

 

 

 

It seems you've already forgotten your last argument (in which my earlier statement was directed at).

 

"Yeah but you don't see them banning those things..."

 

 

 

Banned/disallowed/cultural-movement-arguing-against-guns-as-self-defense. It's the same thing. Is the difference really that big of a deal? You're arguing semantics once again.

 

 

 

Often, the reason many criminals "give up" trying to kill their victim is because murder isn't what they came for. Also, it generally isn't in their interest to have a civilian death on their hands.

 

 

 

Ah, so they didn't come to pull the trigger of the gun they loaded and bought... even though that's what they just did. Not sure I follow you there... :D

 

 

 

As an example, say a carjacker shoots his gun with the intention of seriously harming (perhaps even killing) his victim. The shot misses, but it's enough to scare the victim off, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then chase after the victim and shoot him down? No, not usually. He's there for the car, not the victim.

 

 

 

Replace that convenient situation with a knife. Does the victim hear any shots? No, a gunshot is the equivalent to a stab/slash from a knife and I don't know about you but it's harder to miss when you're that close. Well, this scenario didn't work out too good for you.

 

 

 

Now let's say the victim was hit by the bullet. The victim, injured, becomes submissive and falls out of the car and onto the ground, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then shoot and kill the incapacitated victim now lying on the ground? No, not usually. The carjacker gets in the car and drives away. The car, not the victim, is what he came for.

 

 

 

You're going to use an argument with an example of someone surviving from a gunshot? Okay, that sounds like the equivalent of someone getting stabbed and the criminal walking away while the victim's still alive. I never said that all criminals have the intent to kill though - only the ones who do go through killing purposely. Obviously they didn't have the intent to kill in that situation since the guy with the gun doesn't try to ensure death so that would translate to the knife guy not wanting to ensure the death either. What's your point? My argument was that gun murders can easily be replaced with knife murders because the intentions are the same - those scenarios are not murders.

[purfishx]

Hiierach trying to squeeze into the epicness. :shame:

 

 

 

Continue.

[venomai]

Err... no. If the supply for the primary market was cut low then the demand for the secondary market would rise.

 

Lower supply in the primary market will lead to lower supply in the secondary. Demand in the secondary market may rise significantly if the attitude of law-abiding citizens is unchanged, but even so, high demand in the secondary market will not lead to higher supply.

 

 

 

For example, a 1996 study by Weil and Knox concluded that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month (in the primary market) was an "effective means" of disrupting trafficking and supply in the secondary market.[1]

 

 

 

Then what are you proposing? It can't be more strict regulation or else we wouldn't arguing, now would we?

 

There is a very fundamental difference between wanting strict regulation and wanting immediate prohibition. I am arguing for both a change in laws as well as a change in attitude (brought about by changes in education, media, etc). Eventually, once the demand (and supply) of handguns and assault rifles is low enough, full prohibition of private ownership of such firearms may be applicable. But, at this point, it would be foolish to propose full prohibition.

 

 

 

So which one is it? Do criminals pick and choose for specific reasons or not?

 

Like I said, criminals "generally pick the most lethal weapon that is readily available to them." This is often because the most lethal weapon (a gun) tends to be the most intimidating.

 

 

 

Mind showing me when I suggested that kids should use guns? Also, you must remember that these two groups are also the ones in need of self-defense the most. And handing guns to criminals? No, I don't think there are many old ladies who can be classified as criminals. They're usually harmless.

 

That you bring up children in your "these groups need self-defense the most" argument seems to imply that you wish to arm them.

 

 

 

You're missing my point, though. These two groups are among the easiest for criminals to physically disarm, i.e. take the weapon from.

 

 

 

What part don't you understand about, "That's not all there is to it!"?

 

Guns are more lethal than knives and generally lead to more lethal outcomes. Whether or not "that's all there is to it," from it we can infer that a reduction in gun crime, even if it is substituted by an increase in knife crime (which has not shown to be the case[2, Appendix C]), would lead to a reduction in homicide rate.

 

 

 

"That's not all there is to it" is a weak evasion to my points. If there are specific factors that directly contradict the above argument, I'd like to hear them.

 

 

 

Banned/disallowed/cultural-movement-arguing-against-guns-as-self-defense. It's the same thing. Is the difference really that big of a deal? You're arguing semantics once again.

 

What a stretch. Removing firearm self-defense from citizens does not equate to full prohibition of firearms.

 

 

 

You're missing the point, though. The reason I brought up these prohibitions (DUI, drugs, stabbings) was because you claimed that "you don't see them banning those things," which, obviously, is incorrect. This is not arguing semantics, this is refuting your claim directly.

 

 

 

Ah, so they didn't come to pull the trigger of the gun they loaded and bought... even though that's what they just did. Not sure I follow you there...

 

I'm not surprised.

 

 

 

They didn't come to kill the victim, they came to steal the goods.

 

 

 

Replace that convenient situation with a knife. ... Well, this scenario didn't work out too good for you.

 

Sure it did. Let's say we use a knife instead...

 

 

 

In example A, the criminal swings his knife and misses, but it's enough to scare off the victim. Does he then chase after the victim and stab him to death? No, not usually.

 

 

 

In example B, the criminal swings his knife and hits. The victim, injured and submissive, is pulled out of the car. Does he continue to stab the victim to death? No, not usually. He gets in the car and drives away.

 

 

 

Okay, that sounds like the equivalent of someone getting stabbed and the criminal walking away while the victim's still alive.

 

Which happens all the time...

 

 

 

Obviously they didn't have the intent to kill in that situation since the guy with the gun doesn't try to ensure death so that would translate to the knife guy not wanting to ensure the death either.

 

You're contradicting your earlier claims: shooting a loaded weapon at a person equates to intent kill.

 

 

 

My argument was that gun murders can easily be replaced with knife murders because the intentions are the same - those scenarios are not murders.

 

See the knife examples above. It's easy to replace guns with knives, but that doesn't mean the outcome will necessarily be as fatal. The exceptions, of course, are cases like premeditated murder, where death usually is ensured.

[Zierro]

Lower supply in the primary market will lead to lower supply in the secondary. Demand in the secondary market may rise significantly if the attitude of law-abiding citizens is unchanged, but even so, high demand in the secondary market will not lead to higher supply.

 

 

 

How is that even slightly true? I'd say the exact opposite. The primary market is for those who want self-defense because they obtain the weapons legally. Cut the supply short and now those who still want guns for self-defense would have to get the guns from the secondary market. The secondary (black) market would realize the increase in demand for their particular market so they would compromise by trying to increase their supply to meet equilibrium.

 

 

 

For example, a 1996 study by Weil and Knox concluded that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month (in the primary market) was an "effective means" of disrupting trafficking and supply in the secondary market.[1]

 

 

 

That deals with stricter regulation which I have said numerous times I am in favor of. I said I want the good people to be armed, not the bad ones, remember? A stricter regulation would stop most of the criminals from using the legal market, but that doesn't mean all of them are going to stop that easily. A criminal is going to want a gun - legal or illegal. After all, it's criminals we're talking about here.

 

 

 

There is a very fundamental difference between wanting strict regulation and wanting immediate prohibition. I am arguing for both a change in laws as well as a change in attitude (brought about by changes in education, media, etc). Eventually, once the demand (and supply) of handguns and assault rifles is low enough, full prohibition of private ownership of such firearms may be applicable. But, at this point, it would be foolish to propose full prohibition.

 

 

 

Like I said, good luck with changing the attitude. It's like you're skipping a step and proceeding. It doesn't work that way. You are saying the problem lies in wanting the right to have guns for self-defense. Why is self-defense wanted? Because the black market thrives and criminals can always get their hands on dangerous weapons. Take away the legal guns, and that doesn't make self-defense any less desirable. It will just force the good people into using the black market.

 

 

 

Like I said, criminals "generally pick the most lethal weapon that is readily available to them." This is often because the most lethal weapon (a gun) tends to be the most intimidating.

 

 

 

You are saying that there is a substantial correlation between lethality and intimidation. It may be partially true because people aren't afraid of pens, but then again if it's completely true then why don't people have a phobia of trucks? There is more to it than just lethality alone like I've stated before.

 

 

 

That you bring up children in your "these groups need self-defense the most" argument seems to imply that you wish to arm them.

 

 

 

Guess I shouldn't have added the word "self" in front then. I didn't mean I want armed children but a gun in an old widow's safe at home to protect herself from burglars seems like a good idea to me.

 

 

 

You're missing my point, though. These two groups are among the easiest for criminals to physically disarm, i.e. take the weapon from.

 

 

 

Hey, guns can fire from a long range can't they? Plus there have been many more cases of guns being used effectively in self-defense than there have been cases of guns being disarmed from victims and used against themselves. You can't argue on the basis that "something might go wrong." Something can always go wrong, but that doesn't mean you should sacrifice a much needed and effective method of self-defense because usually things work out in favor of the person holding the gun.

 

 

 

"That's not all there is to it" is a weak evasion to my points. If there are specific factors that directly contradict the above argument, I'd like to hear them.

 

 

 

Criminal intent. Get rid of legal guns and the innocent will suffer. Stuff like that.

 

 

 

What a stretch. Removing firearm self-defense from citizens does not equate to full prohibition of firearms.

 

 

 

It's stretch to say they don't equate. In fact, the full prohibition is even a better idea than just targeting the legal guns and making the innocent self-defense seekers suffer.

 

 

 

You're missing the point, though. The reason I brought up these prohibitions (DUI, drugs, stabbings) was because you claimed that "you don't see them banning those things," which, obviously, is incorrect. This is not arguing semantics, this is refuting your claim directly.

 

 

 

I don't see them banning cars, drugs, and knives as whole items though because if they are used correctly they have positive outcomes. Just like self-defense. Refer back to Danger's link about gun self-defense actually being beneficial. :o

 

 

 

I'm not surprised.

 

 

 

They didn't come to kill the victim, they came to steal the goods.

 

 

 

But the point is that they did kill the victim and on purpose too.

 

 

 

In example A, the criminal swings his knife and misses, but it's enough to scare off the victim. Does he then chase after the victim and stab him to death? No, not usually.

 

 

 

That's mighty convenient because normally people don't miss with knives as often as they miss with guns. That's not even my point though because it's not a case of murder which is what I'm talking about. (People who want to murder with guns will just try harder to murder if they have a less lethal weapon.)

 

 

 

In example B, the criminal swings his knife and hits. The victim, injured and submissive, is pulled out of the car. Does he continue to stab the victim to death? No, not usually. He gets in the car and drives away.

 

 

 

True. I'm talking about murder though and that isn't a case of it.

 

 

 

 

You're contradicting your earlier claims: shooting a loaded weapon at a person equates to intent kill.

 

 

 

Shooting a loaded weapon and succeeding you mean.

 

 

 

See the knife examples above. It's easy to replace guns with knives, but that doesn't mean the outcome will necessarily be as fatal. The exceptions, of course, are cases like premeditated murder, where death usually is ensured.

 

 

 

If you are aware that a gun is one of the most lethal weapons, you consciously obtain and load it, and pull the trigger at someone - I don't know how that is not having the intent of killing someone.

[venomai]

The primary market is for those who want self-defense because they obtain the weapons legally. Cut the supply short and now those who still want guns for self-defense would have to get the guns from the secondary market. The secondary (black) market would realize the increase in demand for their particular market so they would compromise by trying to increase their supply to meet equilibrium.

 

First; many if not most of the secondary market users are "law-abiding citizens." Secondary market includes any unregulated transfer of firearms, from retail outlets to flea shops to gun shows.

 

 

 

Second; the supply of the secondary market is dependent on the primary market. Guns are manufactured and sold in the primary market, and then, over time, many of them are transferred to the secondary market. If supply in the primary market is cut (e.g. less guns are manufactured and sold), then less guns will be transferred to the secondary market, and thus the supply in the secondary market will be reduced. This is what happened in the 1996 study I linked to.

 

 

 

You are saying the problem lies in wanting the right to have guns for self-defense. Why is self-defense wanted? Because the black market thrives and criminals can always get their hands on dangerous weapons. Take away the legal guns, and that doesn't make self-defense any less desirable.

 

You're ignoring one crucial aspect of gun control; the fact that it aims to remove guns from criminals. As I've explained above, and as the study points out, if we enforce stricter control of the primary market, the secondary market has no choice but to follow.

 

 

 

Firearm self-defense may be desirable, but that doesn't always make it worthwhile.

 

 

 

You are saying that there is a substantial correlation between lethality and intimidation. It may be partially true because people aren't afraid of pens, but then again if it's completely true then why don't people have a phobia of trucks? There is more to it than just lethality alone like I've stated before.

 

Most people do not fear guns. We see police officers carrying them all the time. However, we do fear guns when they are pointed at us. Likewise, we do not fear trucks, but we may fear a truck if it was driving toward us.

 

 

 

Hey, guns can fire from a long range can't they?

 

I sure hope grandma isn't near-sighted. :lol:

 

 

 

Plus there have been many more cases of guns being used effectively in self-defense than there have been cases of guns being disarmed from victims and used against themselves.

 

Since the elderly are not used as the sample group in these studies, this point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

(a) Criminal intent. (B) Get rid of legal guns and the innocent will suffer. Stuff like that.

 

(a) Care to elaborate?

 

(B) This is irrelevant to the argument in question.

 

 

 

It's stretch to say they don't equate.

 

Umm... No. You'd have to be a fool to think that full prohibition of all firearms equates to a mere removal of the right for citizens to own handguns and assault rifles.

 

 

 

I don't see them banning cars, drugs, and knives as whole items though because if they are used correctly they have positive outcomes. Just like self-defense.

 

How many times must I say this? I'm not proposing full prohibition.

 

 

 

That's mighty convenient because normally people don't miss with knives as often as they miss with guns.

 

It depends entirely on the distance and obstacles (e.g. car window) between the victim and assailant. But that isn't the point. The point is: even after the criminal hits the victim, he generally won't continue to if the goods have been secured.

 

 

 

True. I'm talking about murder though and that isn't a case of it.

 

For the past several pages we have been talking about homicides (murders) that were not premeditated. For example, if the victim in example B was to die before paramedics arrived, which is more often the case in gunshot wounds, the crime would be considered a "murder" (or homicide), but not a "premeditated murder."

 

 

 

Shooting a loaded weapon and succeeding you mean.

 

Not according to your earlier claims.

 

 

 

And I really don't see what you're arguing. The intent at the moment the criminal pulls the trigger will be the same regardless of whether the shot "suceeds." Obviously, this is because, at that moment in time, the criminal doesn't know whether or not the shot will "succeed."

 

 

 

If you are aware that a gun is one of the most lethal weapons, you consciously obtain and load it, and pull the trigger at someone - I don't know how that is not having the intent of killing someone.

 

This too contradicts your earlier statement.

 

 

 

"Obviously they didn't have the intent to kill in that situation since the guy with the gun doesn't try to ensure death..."

 

 

 

The situations in which death is not ensured (i.e. non-premeditated murders) are the situations we are discussing.

[Zierro]

First; many if not most of the secondary market users are "law-abiding citizens." Secondary market includes any unregulated transfer of firearms, from retail outlets to flea shops to gun shows.

 

 

 

Isn't it against the law to buy a gun and skip the mandatory regulation part? I don't know how that is abiding the law.

 

 

 

Second; the supply of the secondary market is dependent on the primary market. Guns are manufactured and sold in the primary market, and then, over time, many of them are transferred to the secondary market. If supply in the primary market is cut (e.g. less guns are manufactured and sold), then less guns will be transferred to the secondary market, and thus the supply in the secondary market will be reduced. This is what happened in the 1996 study I linked to.

 

 

 

Okay, I see what you mean by that now. The problem is that I don't think it matters when it comes to the manufacturing. I've read somewhere (The book: Freakonomics in case you're wondering) that there is enough guns here in the US to be distributed to every citizen and there would still be a surplus. The only immediate effect cutting the supply in the primary market would do is keep the innocent people unarmed until the criminal's market 'catches up' and their supply is cut short too.

 

 

 

You're ignoring one crucial aspect of gun control; the fact that it aims to remove guns from criminals. As I've explained above, and as the study points out, if we enforce stricter control of the primary market, the secondary market has no choice but to follow.

 

 

 

Firearm self-defense may be desirable, but that doesn't always make it worthwhile.

 

 

 

Like I said above, the only immediate effect (I'm talking decades too) would be that the innocent won't have guns for a while but the criminals will.

 

 

 

Most people do not fear guns. We see police officers carrying them all the time. However, we do fear guns when they are pointed at us. Likewise, we do not fear trucks, but we may fear a truck if it was driving toward us.

 

 

 

Wait, so you're agreeing that there is indeed more to the picture than lethality?

 

 

 

Since the elderly are not used as the sample group in these studies, this point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Okay don't think about the elderly for a minute. Think in broad and general terms now. There are more cases of guns being used effectively for self-defense than there are cases of the defenders being disarmed.

 

 

 

(a) Care to elaborate?

 

 

 

Like I said, if it's the criminal's intentions to kill you with a gun - that would translate to the criminal's intentions to kill you with a knife. The only difference is they'd have to exert more effort to ensure your death.

 

 

 

(B) This is irrelevant to the argument in question.

 

 

 

I guess the innocent could have knives for self-defense but you have said yourself that guns are more lethal. That means the criminals have something more lethal available to them than law abiding citizens.

 

 

 

Umm... No. You'd have to be a fool to think that full prohibition of all firearms equates to a mere removal of the right for citizens to own handguns and assault rifles.

 

 

 

Hmm so you're just talking about cops then aren't you? :lol:

 

 

 

How many times must I say this? I'm not proposing full prohibition.

 

 

 

I know. You're proposing a ban on a beneficial use for the guns instead - self-defense. That's worse than getting rid of the whole entire thing because the only people who are immediately effected are ironically the ones who want guns to protect themselves against crazies in the first place.

 

 

 

It depends entirely on the distance and obstacles (e.g. car window) between the victim and assailant. But that isn't the point. The point is: even after the criminal hits the victim, he generally won't continue to if the goods have been secured.

 

 

 

Alright, then that means he doesn't have the intent to kill. He wouldn't if he had a knife either. If anything, it's just indifference to the well-being of others. That isn't the type of crime I'm talking about though.

 

 

 

Not according to your earlier claims.

 

 

 

? Mind quoting me? Maybe you misread or I made a typo. My point was that gun murders can be replaced with knife murders because if the intent is the same, then the outcome can just as easily be the same too.

 

 

 

And I really don't see what you're arguing. The intent at the moment the criminal pulls the trigger will be the same regardless of whether the shot "suceeds." Obviously, this is because, at that moment in time, the criminal doesn't know whether or not the shot will "succeed."

 

 

 

If he doesn't succeed and he shoots again then that clearly shows that he does have the intent to kill. Either that or he's just purposely wasting bullets for no reason. But again, I don't see how it's an "accident" to consciously obtain, load, and shoot a gun at a person. If you have the intent to do something, you're doing it on purpose.

[venomai]

Isn't it against the law to buy a gun and skip the mandatory regulation part? I don't know how that is abiding the law.

 

Unlicensed private sale of firearms is permitted by law in many states (including transfer between friends and family). Even in states where this is not technically permitted, the gun lobby tends to still call such people "law-abiding citizens."

 

 

 

The only immediate effect cutting the supply in the primary market would do is keep the innocent people unarmed until the criminal's market 'catches up' and their supply is cut short too. ... I'm talking decades too

 

The 1996 study shows a significant effect (reduced supply in the secondary market) over a span of two years. This isn't decades we're talking about.

 

 

 

Wait, so you're agreeing that there is indeed more to the picture than lethality?

 

Yes, there's more to intimidation than just lethality. But generally, people will be more intimidated by the threat of a gunshot wound than a stab wound because the former is so much more lethal. Thus, generally, a more lethal weapon is a more intimidating weapon.

 

 

 

Think in broad and general terms now. There are more cases of guns being used effectively for self-defense than there are cases of the defenders being disarmed.

 

Sure, but this has nothing to do with our earlier argument.

 

 

 

Like I said, if it's the criminal's intentions to kill you with a gun - that would translate to the criminal's intentions to kill you with a knife. The only difference is they'd have to exert more effort to ensure your death.

 

Yes, more effort is inevitable, such as having to swing your whole arm instead of just pulling a trigger. However, this doesn't refute the claim that knife crime tends to be less lethal than gun crime.

 

 

 

I guess the innocent could have knives for self-defense but you have said yourself that guns are more lethal. That means the criminals have something more lethal available to them than law abiding citizens.

 

Again, this is irrelevant to the argument in question. The argument is that gun crime leads to more lethal outcomes, and so a reduction of gun crime, even if it is substituted by an increase in knife crime, would lead to less homicides. Stating this and that about self-defense does not address my claims.

 

 

 

(And yes, in most countries, criminals, terrorists, etc. tend to use more lethal and more destructive weapons than citizens.)

 

 

 

Hmm so you're just talking about cops then aren't you?

 

As well as hunting, recreational shooting, military training, use in security forces, etc.

 

 

 

That's worse than getting rid of the whole entire thing because the only people who are immediately effected are ironically the ones who want guns to protect themselves against crazies in the first place.

 

The problem with this logic is that:

 

a) Full prohibition, as you've pointed out yourself with the American Prohibition, is often counterproductive.

 

B) The effects of stricter control, while not "immediate," take effect quite quickly (see above study).

 

 

 

Alright, then that means he doesn't have the intent to kill. He wouldn't if he had a knife either. If anything, it's just indifference to the well-being of others. That isn't the type of crime I'm talking about though.

 

But these are the types of crimes that I'm talking about; crimes that would have very different outcomes had they been committed with a less lethal weapon. These types of crimes comprise of a significant portion of all homicides.

 

 

 

While it may not be the criminal's original intent to kill or harm the victim, he certainly does have intent to harm/kill at the moment the trigger is pulled. (See below.)

 

 

 

Mind quoting me? .. I don't see how it's an "accident" to consciously obtain, load, and shoot a gun at a person. If you have the intent to do something, you're doing it on purpose.

 

Your argument has never said anything about the "success" of the shot. Your argument has always assumed that, if a criminal shoots a loaded gun at a person -- regardless of the outcome -- the criminal must have an intent to kill. This understanding is based on what you've been writing over the past several pages. You've even repeated this same notion in the quote above.

 

 

 

Like I've been saying for pages now, I agree with you for the most part. If somebody aims a loaded gun at somebody and pulls the trigger, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in doing so, they intended to seriously harm and perhaps even kill their target. This is true in both of the carjacking examples I've presented to you.

[Kriegsmier]

Endless....walls....of....quotes...Makes me want to use a gun on myself.

[ember3579]

Endless....walls....of....quotes...Makes me want to use a gun on myself.

 

 

 

I feel your pain, dude. :lol: :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

In all honesty, right now, at least from my perspective, entirely legally obtained guns stop more crimes than they enable, even if you give more weight to violent crimes. Until that changes, the general populous should be allowed to buy as they are now. All that really needs to be done is to enforce the current laws and refocus the approval process so that people who have been in serious trouble recently (mentally and legally) can't get a weapon. I say this as a man whose lived his entire memorable life in the heart of deer hunting country. If that doesn't work, make it mandatory for a person who wants certain types of firearms (most semiautomatic rifles and most handguns/revolvers) to have some military service under their belt. This will guarantee that they can handle a gun, and it will help recruitment. That's what I call a win-win.

[Zierro]

Eh, at least you guys aren't a part of it. And to Venomai, I think it's time for a closing. We've argued our points well enough and I think it just got to that chapter where we keep repeating ourselves. Well, it's been like that for a bit :lol: but now I think we should probably just save our strength for other debates in different threads.