[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let's be fair here.

There's are a certain small segment of people who are totally ****ing froot loops, and they're very vocal.

Fixed for you . Those people have the same rights as us, mind you.

Looking from a few thousand miles away, they could seem to represent a larger group then they really do.

This is true of any of society's "undesirables." Seriously, remove "gun owner" and replace with "criminal" or "gangbanger" or "white supremacist" and your statement is no less true.

Just as a point of reference for Waragainstsleep. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment as a deterrence to tyranny. I don't own a gun.

It seems to me that statements like his are more rooted in some sort of fashionable obedience to a preferred ideology than of a critical thinking, rational position. I'd love for him to prove me wrong with a reasoned explanation for the hate he's spewing against gun-owners in general, which we could then use as a basis for productive discussion. If I had to bet I'd take the under.

[Waragainstsleep]

I was talking about the Ukraine where the PM was removed from office without the need for a heavily armed militia.

As for rational, critical thought, the above events plus the vastly lower rates of gun deaths in countries where they don't hand them out for opening a bank account or filling your gas tank or free in some special packs of Skittles proves the only rational reason that an American needs to be armed, is because all the other Americans are armed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It seems to me that statements like his are more rooted in some sort of fashionable obedience to a preferred ideology than of a critical thinking, rational position. I'd love for him to prove me wrong with a reasoned explanation for the hate he's spewing against gun-owners in general, which we could then use as a basis for productive discussion. If I had to bet I'd take the under.

I liken it more to a kid who doesn't quite realize all their parents do for them.

It's easy to say "we don't need tyranny protection" when you have NATO (which lets face it, is mostly us) as a tyranny deterrent.


The question this poses however is who deters us?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was talking about the Ukraine where the PM was removed from office without the need for a heavily armed militia.

As for rational, critical thought, the above events plus the vastly lower rates of gun deaths in countries where they don't hand them out for opening a bank account or filling your gas tank or free in some special packs of Skittles proves the only rational reason that an American needs to be armed, is because all the other Americans are armed.

How does what happened in the Ukraine behave as anything but a single scenario. A scenario where the president flees the country after a few weeks. You think that would be the outcome of a revolution here? It wouldn't. Trust me on this.

[subego]

Some people argue there's no way civilians with hunting rifles could beat the combined might of the US military. Some people argue you can have a revolution without a shot being fired.

It can't be both.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was talking about the Ukraine where the PM was removed from office without the need for a heavily armed militia.

As for rational, critical thought, the above events plus the vastly lower rates of gun deaths in countries where they don't hand them out for opening a bank account or filling your gas tank or free in some special packs of Skittles proves the only rational reason that an American needs to be armed, is because all the other Americans are armed.

The places where people are hacked to death with machetes and kitchen knives? Violence is violence and the US isn't even close to being the #1 first-world country in cases of aggravated assault, we aren't even in the top 80 countries, unlike the UK (Scotland and N Ireland, WTF?). You guys have a full half of our number of reported crimes each year, with only 1/5th of our population? Face it, if your people were armed your country would be empty in a matter of months. Splinter in our eye, tree branch in yours?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Some people argue there's no way civilians with hunting rifles could beat the combined might of the US military. Some people argue you can have a revolution without a shot being fired.

It can't be both.

Of course it isn't, because they're throwing any anti-firearm rhetoric they can think of against the wall, hoping something will stick, without looking at the broader picture. Guns don't exist to propagate more violence and lawlessness (in fact, in places where people are armed those instances drop dramatically, as you know), they exist because that nature is a part of humanity already. When faced with that their argument falls apart and all they're left with is "guns are scary and people die when they're shot". Oh really?

[subego]

And I think it's reasonable to point out having easy access to guns means people are going to get shot up.

I know I've said it in this very thread. Freedom has a price.

[Chongo]

I wonder how this will be blamed on the NRA.
20-Injured In Stabbing At Franklin Regional High School « CBS Pittsburgh

[subego]

Well, I think an objective look at that shows a situation where you have wounds, only one of which is critical (AFAIK).

If he had had a gun, you'd have dead people.


Let me ask... if your mission was to murder a bunch of people, and you could pick the gun or the machete, which would you pick?

[subego]

I think this also shows effective use of a machete requires training, whereas a gun doesn't.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I think an objective look at that shows a situation where you have wounds, only one of which is critical (AFAIK).

If he had had a gun, you'd have dead people.


Let me ask... if your mission was to murder a bunch of people, and you could pick the gun or the machete, which would you pick?

Dontcha think just a single armed good guy in this situation coulda prevented those 20 stabbings? I mean hell, there's a pretty fat chance that rampage dude would have stopped when he saw a gun pointed at him.

Why can't we give teachers Tazers again (to only be used in life or death situations)?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was talking about the Ukraine where the PM was removed from office without the need for a heavily armed militia.

You do know quite a bit of blood was spilled during the riots in the streets? Right? This includes a significant number of civilians shot dead in the street. With guns. By heavily armed police against defenseless protesters, who upon arming themselves, were able to reduce the rate of those being killed and complete the ouster without Syria levels of bloodshed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1zu6rkCHc

Utopia!

As for rational, critical thought, the above events plus the vastly lower rates of gun deaths in countries where they don't hand them out for opening a bank account or filling your gas tank or free in some special packs of Skittles proves the only rational reason that an American needs to be armed, is because all the other Americans are armed.

And how do you propose disarming everyone? Keep in mind your laws only work on law-abiding citizens, and our border to the south might as well not be there.

As for your vastly lower rates of gun deaths, how do you reconcile the fact that the states with the toughest gun control also have the highest violent crime rate? And states with looser gun laws have lower crime rates?


You know that drunk driving kills more people than guns do each year in the USA. By your logic, we should ban all cars? Those same countries have fewer cars proportionally and wayy lower auto-accident deaths per capita than the good old USA (since we top the charts in both categories).

The grass is always greener, boss. Outlawing brown grass won't improve the situation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dontcha think just a single armed good guy in this situation coulda prevented those 20 stabbings? I mean hell, there's a pretty fat chance that rampage dude would have stopped when he saw a gun pointed at him.

Yes. By the same token a good guy armed with a machete would have a more difficult time than if they were armed with a gun.

I'm specifically addressing the "outlaw guns and mass murderers will use a machete" argument. Yes they will, and less people will die from that scenario. Which is exactly what happened here.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm specifically addressing the "outlaw guns and mass murderers will use a machete" argument. Yes they will, and less people will die from that scenario. Which is exactly what happened here.

Well, yes. But I'd also like to point out that using a car, bomb, fire etc can be way more effective than any gun.

I'd much rather see a stop to "Person uses <insert weapon here> to kill XX people" headlines altogether.

We're not sure what's causing these psychotic episodes. If we could take the energy, money and influence that goes into the antigun agenda and channel it into improving the mental health aspect, the root cause of the killings, we could do some real good. Instead, we're focusing on a political agenda which, if enacted, would have negative consequences for the other 99.99999% of citizens who aren't directly affected.

[subego]

I don't want to tee-off too hard here, but I think if you support the right to bear arms (as I do), you need to take responsibility for the position. Part of that responsibility is acknowledging your position is we should have the free flow of killing machines: machines which were engineered for no other purpose.

I think bringing up car bombs and fires (or machetes) is abdicating that responsibility.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was talking about the Ukraine where the PM was removed from office without the need for a heavily armed militia.

With due respect WAS, this analysis is remarkably thin. Do you think the Ukrainians were unfamiliar with Russia's military capabilities and willingness in Georgia for example?

And somehow a country who is being piecemeal-annexed by a much more heavily armed neighbor is supposed to be a compelling argument for tighter, Ukrainian-style gun control laws?

As for rational, critical thought, the above events plus the vastly lower rates of gun deaths in countries where they don't hand them out for opening a bank account or filling your gas tank or free in some special packs of Skittles proves the only rational reason that an American needs to be armed, is because all the other Americans are armed.

It took great big bullocks to begin this rant with "rational" and "critical thought".

I missed ya though, brother. Good lookin' out.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't want to tee-off too hard here, but I think if you support the right to bear arms (as I do), you need to take responsibility for the position.

What? By placating the politically correct by acknowledging a faulty premise as fact? We don't have to go too hard

Part of that responsibility is acknowledging your position is we should have the free flow of killing machines: machines which were engineered for no other purpose.

Guns are engineered to fling metal at incredible speeds through the air. It's people that decide to what end. (Yes, guns make killing people easier, but that is far from their only purpose).

People use them to kill. People use them to deter. People use them to protect themselves. People use them to commit crimes. People use them to hunt, for sport, and as a hobby.

I think bringing up car bombs and fires (or machetes) is abdicating that responsibility.

You'll have to elaborate here subego. How is calling for our efforts to solve the problem entirely abdicating my responsibility? I think abdication of responsibility is more apt for those that exploit these tragedies to move their political agenda forward, without doing much if anything to address the root cause.

[subego]

Pointing out car bombs can kill more effectively than guns is a call the solve the problem?

When you build a car bomb you are weaponizing the car.

Guns come pre-weaponized.

[Shaddim]

I generally use mine for punching holes in paper targets and blasting clay pigeons to smithereens. It's been ages since I've killed, or even injured, any living thing with them.

[subego]

With most guns, that constitutes a repurposing.

Doesn't the fact they act as an effective deterrent to tyranny imply inherent danger?

You don't have a 2nd Amendment so you can cull the clay pigeon population.

[Shaddim]

I know, just saying. It would be a PITA to try and kill someone with my Volquartsen .17HMRs, being shot with those would just piss a lot of people off. Most would work as a deterrent to tyranny, others are simply for sport.

[subego]

The one gun I have owned was a .22 for plinking.

If I wanted to use it most effectively as a weapon, I'd try and hit you over the head with it rather than shoot you.

But those are exceptions, and as such are only incidentally related to the 2nd Amendment.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pointing out car bombs can kill more effectively than guns is a call the solve the problem?

No, the call to solve the problem was the call to solve the problem. I was simply demonstrating one solution that has negative consequences for 99.9999% of the population who aren't directly affected by the mass shootings doesn't even address the problem we're trying to solve.

I.e., we're wasting our time, money, and effort on a political agenda that will not address the cause of the problem we're setting out to solve.

When you build a car bomb you are weaponizing the car.

I was referring to cars and bombs separately.

Guns come pre-weaponized.

So because someone doesn't take the time to weaponize their 2 ton SUV, it can't be used as a weapon?

I only go down this road because as I see it, stricter gun laws will do nothing to curb the mass killings. The root cause of the problem is in mental health. Do you not agree that we should focus our efforts there?

[subego]

Here's the thing, I haven't even come close to calling for stricter gun laws.

Likewise, I'm not talking about just mass killings. If you have the free flow of guns, more people are going to get shot up. It's basic cause and effect. As I said, this is the price you pay. Freedom has a price.

What's getting my undies bunched is it's coming off* like you're arguing said freedom doesn't have a price. Even if we didn't have that freedom we'd be paying the same price in cars, fires, and machetes. That's simply not true.


*This is the operative qualifier here. I'm not sure this is what you're arguing, it just really feels that way.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the thing, I haven't even come close to calling for stricter gun laws.

Nor were my statements directed at you as though you have. Simply trying to articulate my stance.

Likewise, I'm not talking about just mass killings. If you have the free flow of guns, more people are going to get shot up. It's basic cause and effect. As I said, this is the price you pay. Freedom has a price.

Yes, more people may be shot with more guns. I would say that if we're only looking at that metric we aren't advocating good policy that considers actual impact on society. I happen to agree with your previous arguments that (i think) you're referencing.

What's getting my undies bunched is it's coming off* like you're arguing said freedom doesn't have a price. Even if we didn't have that freedom we'd be paying the same price in cars, fires, and machetes. That's simply not true.

Well, i hoped that you would take what I said a bit further with the whole cause and effect thing.

Disarming the US population would have far more widespread and serious consequences way beyond mass killings. We'd be paying, IMO, a much higher price that isn't measured by, relatively speaking, a very small number killed in comparison to the population of the United States.

In addition, we wouldn't have solved the problem of certain individuals going on a rampage with <insert object here>. I maintain we can solve or at least significantly mitigate the issue by focusing our collective attention to the study of the the mental conditions that precipitate these rampages.

I'm simply trying to say that tougher gun laws will do little to nothing to solve the problem at hand.

*This is the operative qualifier here. I'm not sure this is what you're arguing, it just really feels that way.

I'm simply saying that even without considering the widespread, negative consequences that the anti-gun agenda would have, anti-gun measures would be a terrible way to address mass killings.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the thing, I haven't even come close to calling for stricter gun laws.

Likewise, I'm not talking about just mass killings. If you have the free flow of guns, more people are going to get shot up. It's basic cause and effect. As I said, this is the price you pay. Freedom has a price.

Why does that have to be acknowledged by those who support the right to own and bear arms? Particularly in light of the fact that people would use that cost of freedom to infringe upon it. Responsible gun-ownership certainly includes respecting a gun as "weaponized" whether it's loaded or not, but the arguments for preserving that right to ownership do not have to include fodder for your opposition. By acknowledging a risk you claim is otherwise very basic, you're only contributing to the FUD inherent in relinquishing freedom. A look at global rape stats, assault, and home robberies suggest the cost of eliminating that freedom may be higher and while gun ownership in the US only continues to increase, the number of people getting "shot up" continues to decrease. Those would be the responsible positions of people seeking to preserve a right, not make friends with those seeking to relinquish it.

When more than 200 armed Feds convened on a single Nevada rancher and the helicopters were circling his ranch, it was the cost of freedom that turned them away. Besson has long-claimed there is no suitable check to tyrannical government and apparently a couple hundred armed militiamen begged to differ. That's what I'd call taking responsibility for a position.

[subego]

It sounds like you're saying "if you speak the truth people may use that against you... even wantonly".

Yeah, okay. I'll pay that price too. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because the other guy abuses the truth.

[subego]

TBH, what I feel I'm getting here is a flavor of "persecuted minority syndrome".

You both (rightfully) feel the danger in the persecution, but take it to the point where the problems in your own house get glossed over lest they be used to further persecute.


Edit: and of course the irony is, just like with other persecuted minorities, this glossing over is used to persecute you. The resistance on that front is interpreted as arguing in bad faith, which then saps the energy out of the legit arguments, such as "we need these inherently dangerous devices as a deterrent to tyranny... in fact, it's that very danger which serves as the deterrent".

[subego]

That last part is the crux of it. Are machetes as effective a deterrent to tyranny as guns?

I'd say no.

If they're not on the same plane when it comes to tyranny deterrence, how do they arrive on the same plane when it comes to being an instrument of mass killing?

[OAW]

Once again, Subego is dropping knowledge.

OAW

[subego]

Why, thank you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sounds like you're saying "if you speak the truth people may use that against you... even wantonly".

Yeah, okay. I'll pay that price too. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because the other guy abuses the truth.

No. What I'm saying is when you parrot the dubious talking points of the opposition such as "If you have the free flow of guns, more people are going to get shot up" you are framing the "truth" in such as way as to bolster the opposing view. i.e. beyond mere appeasement -- putting the very right you claim to support in peril. What folks are trying to tell you and ironically, others who support tighter gun control, is that the gun is only a killing machine if the person holding it is a killing agent as evidenced by those killing with baseball bats and golf clubs in greater numbers than those killing by "assault rifles". Otherwise, the purpose of the gun is target practice, skeet shooting, or for keeping in a cabinet to show off to their friends. Like... for the overwhelming majority of gun owners. Again, we have exponentially more guns "out there running around" and lower rates of violent crime.

The opposition needs to focus on the implement itself making arguments about what it was designed to do as if it has a mind of its own right off the assembly line or even relevant to the social ills inherent in its abuses. IMHO, The truth as you've expressed it, is only fodder for a paternalistic mindset that cannot trust you and I with this freedom.

Lest we forget, the intention of those supporting tighter gun controls is not to seek solidarity with fair-minded people, but to suppress a fundamental right.

[OAW]

That's not the intent at all. The intent is to keep it real. Now it's no secret around here that I'm a left of center guy. But at the same time I'm a gun owner. And I will keep it 100 here. The purpose of my firearm isn't to go skeet shooting, target practicing, or to secure Bambi for dinner. Or any of the other euphemisms people want to bandie about. The purpose of my firearm is to drop a MF where he stands if he ever threatens the safety of me or mine. Period! That being said, extensive background checks are a good thing which shouldn't concern anyone who could easily pass one. And we need more than 15 shots in a magazine why? These nutcases shooting up the block are often tackled and disarmed when attempting to reload. Why not have the opportunity to do that after 15 shots instead of 30 or 50? Because the way I see it, in any legitimate self defense situation if you haven't resolved things in your favor after 15 shots chances are it's not going to end well for you anyway. IJS

OAW

[subego]

I still have to ask. Why is a gun considered a more effective deterrent to tyranny than a machete if not for it being a better suited killing machine?

Let's take a modern, non-hunting, non-target pistol (i.e. the majority of pistols). These have flat-out obvious design goals. Right "off the assembly line" as it were.

The first goal is to have a tool which is portable enough to carry on one's person for extended periods without undue fatigue.

The second goal is to support the first, namely to prove effective in the precisely one scenario where someone has to carry said tool for long enough periods of time where fatigue is an issue.

That scenario is suddenly needing to kill someone. It has no other purpose. Should you want it for another purpose, you have most assuredly purchased the wrong tool.

[ebuddy]

^^ Both you and OAW are still missing the point IMO. You don't purchase car insurance to go and get into a car accident just as you don't purchase a baseball bat to go and kill someone. (though I've known more than one person who carries a baseball bat in the car for just such a necessity) Likewise, I wouldn't say car insurance is the wrong tool unless you intend to get into a car accident, but I'd say car insurance is handy to have if this unfortunate scenario were to fall upon you.

The gun is a killing machine only if the person behind it is a killing agent in which case any tool can be a killing machine.

In OAWs case, there's an even stronger intellectual conundrum. OAW -- you support tighter restrictions through more extensive background checks, but just looking at the criminal punitive system and the greater number of minorities trapped up with criminal records and greater incarceration rates, the extensive background checks are likely to disproportionately affect those in the position of needing the insurance more. By not separating the right itself from the faces behind the right, we fall into the paternalistic trap of assuming a minority cannot be trusted with such a policy.

If you're not out practicing with the gun you've purchased, you're likely not going to be dropping any MF'ers any time soon, but just may piss them off. If you're out practicing shooting and you don't enjoy it at all, you might be better served by placing an "Insured by Smith and Wesson" sticker on your front door and selling the gun. Otherwise, by taking the gun out once a week or so for target practice, you may find the act of owning one much more enjoyable than merely having an insurance policy against a home invasion and you will have enjoyed the "tool" more as a skill development utility than any killing machine, as the overwhelming remainder of gun owners have.

[ebuddy]

The other point about rifles with magazines... were these handy to those during the looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? Yeah, they were. Because looters don't come at you in packs of 6 in single file. It's a different kind of insurance policy for a different kind of unfortunate scenario. And while these weapons are capable of bringing down more people, they bring down less people than baseball bats and golf clubs.

Again, it's only a killing machine if the person behind it is a killing agent.

[ghporter]

One thing to emphasize in ebuddy's above post: most people do not go out and purchase guns with the intent to immediately kill others.

The issue isn't the vast majority of gun owners, who as ebuddy says don't buy firearms with the intent to go out and kill someone. It's the very small minority with enough problems of impulse control, mental illness, or other issues that make them unsafe with baseball bats and kitchen knives that are the crux of the discussion. Just this past week a kid took knives to school and cut and stabbed his way through the halls until he was physically restrained. Gun control didn't have any part in that. But how did he get that upset and that disturbed? How did he get that bad off without someone noticing, and worse, without someone doing something about it?

At Ft. Hood, the Soldier who recently shot a number of people was "being evaluated" for a diagnosis of PTSD. He was apparently already under treatment for other mental health issues. And I'll point out that military installations are (I'm not making this up) "gun free zones." You simply aren't allowed to bring firearms "or other dangerous weapons" onto bases or posts - it says so on the sigh at the gate (which I partially quoted just now). That wasn't a deterrent. But deterrence in his case, as well as the school stabbing case, wasn't ever going to work. It's a matter of identifying and caring for people who are mentally and emotionally impaired before they get to the point where they go out and get a machete or golf club or whatever and hurt other people.

[ghporter]

I'll add that just tossing pills at people with emotional issues has a very poor track record. The way we treat mental illnesses that have not progressed to the point of "institutionalize or incarcerate" has to radically change, as does the public's impression of mental illness and its treatment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'll add that just tossing pills at people with emotional issues has a very poor track record. The way we treat mental illnesses that have not progressed to the point of "institutionalize or incarcerate" has to radically change, as does the public's impression of mental illness and its treatment.

!!! This nails it. In fact, you don't have to look far to see that many, if not most of the folks committing the most atrocious of these acts were already on medication; medication that adds "suicidal" to the wealth of other implications. We've found there is nothing more nefarious than a suicidal tendency combined with sociopathic or dissociative underpinnings.

[subego]

My use of the phrase "killing machine" isn't meant to reflect the mindset of the wielder, though I see how it could be interpreted that way, and would agree that's not a helpful or accurate position.

My use of that phrase is based on, well... its efficacy.

As you point out, almost anything can be turned into a weapon, but very few can match a gun's efficacy.

To be clear, efficacy isn't merely based on whether it can put a hole in someone. A sword accomplishes its job in the same manner. It puts a hole in someone. Efficacy is what makes myself, and the majority of others, pick the gun over the sword if given the choice.

Pick the gun almost any other choice.

It's cheap. It's widely available. It takes incredibly little skill to use. It takes very little strength or coordination. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage with cutting someone. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage of needing to be within reach of someone. It doesn't have any of the actual baggage of being within reach someone, like them trying to stop you.

The sum of these things is what makes guns so effective. The barrier to entry is lower than the next best options by about half an order of magnitude IME. This efficacy is what makes is such a good tyranny deterrent. Low barrier of entry equals deployable on a large scale.

To rephrase my "free flow of killing machines means people will get shot up" statement in less incendiary terms: the lower the barrier of entry, the more people who are going to enter.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

My use of the phrase "killing machine" isn't meant to reflect the mindset of the wielder, though I see how it could be interpreted that way, and would agree that's not a helpful or accurate position.

My use of that phrase is based on, well... its efficacy.

As you point out, almost anything can be turned into a weapon, but very few can match a gun's efficacy.

To be clear, efficacy isn't merely based on whether it can put a hole in someone. A sword accomplishes its job in the same manner. It puts a hole in someone. Efficacy is what makes myself, and the majority of others, pick the gun over the sword if given the choice.

Pick the gun almost any other choice.

It's cheap. It's widely available. It takes incredibly little skill to use. It takes very little strength or coordination. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage with cutting someone. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage of needing to be within reach of someone. It doesn't have any of the actual baggage of being within reach someone, like them trying to stop you.

The sum of these things is what makes guns so effective. The barrier to entry is lower than the next best options by about half an order of magnitude IME. This efficacy is what makes is such a good tyranny deterrent. Low barrier of entry equals deployable on a large scale.

To rephrase my "free flow of killing machines means people will get shot up" statement in less incendiary terms: the lower the barrier of entry, the more people who are going to enter.

I think our issue (at least mine) is that you're implying a lower barrier of entry to be undesirable, and that the "number of people getting shot up" is a direct linear relationship with the number of guns being purchased by citizens at large. The only problem with this notion is that the US data states exactly the opposite. Crime is going down while these "killing machines free flow" into the hands of US citizens.

[subego]

I'm comparing the number of gun deaths on our country vs. gun deaths in countries which don't allow guns. You take your average first world country and the difference is an entire order of magnitude, often approaching two orders.

I don't think describing that as "people getting shot up" is unfair or hyperbole.

Do I have a problem with the low barrier to entry when it comes to people getting shot up? I don't see how I can't.

Do I have a problem with the low barrier to entry when it comes to tyranny deterrence? Absolutely not.

To put it another way, it's complicated, and what I'm chafing at is the assertion it's not.

[ghporter]

What is the overall murder rate, per capita, in those other first world countries? Can you compare those countries in terms of social uniformity versus social heterogeneity? What is the wealth distribution in those countries? What is the depth of intrusion of illegal drugs in those countries?

There is very little way to compare violence committed using guns in the United States with any other country's social violence problems, because there are so many variables that change things so drastically as to prevent useful comparison. Unless you simply like sound bites that don't say anything.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm comparing the number of gun deaths on our country vs. gun deaths in countries which don't allow guns. You take your average first world country and the difference is an entire order of magnitude, often approaching two orders.

1. Those countries don't have to worry about keeping check on the most powerful military in the world by several orders of magnitude. They have us to do that for them. The military that is responsible by default for ensuring there is no repeat of the 1930s/40s

2. Those countries have a number of different factors producing those outputs, societal, geographical, cultural, economic, etc. You're argument is not supported by any evidence that such policy would have the intended effect here. There is a ton of data that suggests otherwise. I don't think "common sense" is quite enough here, especially from a sociological standpoint.

I don't think describing that as "people getting shot up" is unfair or hyperbole.

Perhaps neither of those, but it strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory and more likely to raise emotional rather than rational response.

Do I have a problem with the low barrier to entry when it comes to people getting shot up? I don't see how I can't.

Are you suggesting a positive correlation between the two (1. gun ownership rates 2. people getting shot up)? The data suggests you have it completely backwards. Gun ownership is going up. Crime is going down.

Do I have a problem with the low barrier to entry when it comes to tyranny deterrence? Absolutely not.

To put it another way, it's complicated, and what I'm chafing at is the assertion it's not.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I'm chafing at the notion that banning guns would have any net benefit to society, even in a vacuum. To me, that logic is a vast oversimplification of the situation in the US and ignores myriad contributing and causative factors to "people getting shot up".

Raising the barrier to entry of acquiring firearms will not reduce the number of people getting shot up. I would point to DC and Chicago as prime examples, but i don't think we need to go further down that road.

EDIT: I get the sense here that you might think I'm so entrenched in the cause, that I'm not willing to accept any views that don't paint my position in a perfect light. I am absolutely interested in solving problems from a pragmatic standpoint, but my very short career as a sociologist taught me that you cannot apply individuals' behavior rationale to sociological scales. I simply disagree with the notion that anti-gun measures would prevent "people from getting shot up" and, as has happened in anti-gun cities across America, would lead to more.

You're absolutely right that "freedom has a price". I would ask that you take that concept a step further and apply it to society in general. Every beneficial aspect of any society has a price, and tinkering with one variable will cascade to the entire society in ways that are sometimes easy, and sometimes very difficult to see. This is what makes sociological analysis so valuable for policy makers, and why I simply reject the notion that Gun Sales = People getting shot up on its face.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

My use of the phrase "killing machine" isn't meant to reflect the mindset of the wielder, though I see how it could be interpreted that way, and would agree that's not a helpful or accurate position.

My use of that phrase is based on, well... its efficacy.

As you point out, almost anything can be turned into a weapon, but very few can match a gun's efficacy.

To be clear, efficacy isn't merely based on whether it can put a hole in someone. A sword accomplishes its job in the same manner. It puts a hole in someone. Efficacy is what makes myself, and the majority of others, pick the gun over the sword if given the choice.

Pick the gun almost any other choice.

It's cheap. It's widely available. It takes incredibly little skill to use. It takes very little strength or coordination. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage with cutting someone. It doesn't have any of the psychological baggage of needing to be within reach of someone. It doesn't have any of the actual baggage of being within reach someone, like them trying to stop you.

The sum of these things is what makes guns so effective. The barrier to entry is lower than the next best options by about half an order of magnitude IME. This efficacy is what makes is such a good tyranny deterrent. Low barrier of entry equals deployable on a large scale.

To rephrase my "free flow of killing machines means people will get shot up" statement in less incendiary terms: the lower the barrier of entry, the more people who are going to enter.

It's efficacy would only matter in context of "gun control" or an argument about availability if the latter supported the former. The problem is, it doesn't. This is Snow-i's point. We believe your entire premise is faulty.

Just as there is a cost of freedom, there's a cost to taking the freedom away. Those costs include assault, home invasion and burglary, and rape. Mortality rates between countries can be controlled away. The only meaningful metric IMO is that while they are more available, the ills associated with them are on the decline. Here. Now. There's just no way around that in my view.

[subego]

I used a phrase here which can be taken two ways, but I only meant it in one. Didn't realize that at the time.

"Low barrier of entry" wasn't meant to refer to our laws, it was meant to refer to the use of a gun as a means to kill someone.

A knife has a higher barrier of entry because of the skill needed to wield it, the fact I need to be close enough to the opponent for them to retaliate, and the fact most people have aversions to both cutting people and spraying blood.

That barrier of entry acts as a deterrent to people attacking with knives. Those deterrents are missing with a gun. Since there's less deterrence, people use it more, and thus you'll have a higher incidence of use.

To be clear, that's both a good and bad thing. A five foot, 90 lb. woman is going to get to defend herself. Likewise, a drunk asshole is going to put less thought into things before they act.

Both scenarios entail more people getting shot.

[subego]

Also, I'll withdraw the "minority prosecution syndrome" comment. I'm getting more of a lock on where you're both coming from, but it required that explication.

In a broad sense, I'd say our views diverge in terms of separation of the tyranny deterrent aspect from the crime aspect, which is how most guns which actually get used, get used. I don't have a problem separating them for analytical purposes. When it comes to separating them from a policy standpoint, things get far more complicated.

To be clear though, in discussing crime from an analytical standpoint, I'm (by definition) not talking legit gun owners.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I used a phrase here which can be taken two ways, but I only meant it in one. Didn't realize that at the time.

"Low barrier of entry" wasn't meant to refer to our laws, it was meant to refer to the use of a gun as a means to kill someone.

I figured this might be the case. No worries. I would only ask, how in the hell do you suppose we raise the barrier of entry to mass killings? They're already very illegal.

A knife has a higher barrier of entry because of the skill needed to wield it, the fact I need to be close enough to the opponent for them to retaliate, and the fact most people have aversions to both cutting people and spraying blood.

If you want to compare the efficacy of guns to knives, you're right. I'm not sure how this applies to mass killings. Do you think the mental problems go away when they can't find access to a gun(which is also very unlikely)? There are infinite ways every day objects could be used to hurt/kill scores of people. Guns are effective yes, but what do we do when bombings become all the rage among the psychotic?

I don't think its productive to try to force mass-killings to happen with weapons we decide are better. I think it'd be much wiser to try to solve the problem by addressing its cause.

That barrier of entry acts as a deterrent to people attacking with knives. Those deterrents are missing with a gun. Since there's less deterrence, people use it more, and thus you'll have a higher incidence of use.

But we have nothing to prove this. There is no evidence on a sociological scale that this is the case at all. How can we say with confidence "We can solve this problem this way!" when we don't even have the slightest clue as to what's causing it? I'm sorry, Subego, but you've got to provide more than this.

How do you reconcile those applying those deterrents with whats happening in places like DC and Chicago? The same logic was applied and it had the opposite of the intended effect.

To be clear, that's both a good and bad thing. A five foot, 90 lb. woman is going to get to defend herself. Likewise, a drunk asshole is going to put less thought into things before they act.

i.e. The price we pay for freedom.

Both scenarios entail more people getting shot.

Again, that's an unsubstantiated assumption. How can you state that 90 lb woman would end up shooting someone? Simply having it (or would-be criminals uncertain if the person they're targeting has one) could be enough to prevent a crime from ever being more than a thought. And you know what sub ego? There's no way to count that, other than tracking the crime rate.

Guns Sales going up -> Crime going down.
Tough Anti-gun Cities -> Highest Crime rates in the country.

If you really want to make your point, you're going to have to reconcile those facts that have hard data behind them. As I see it now, we (in exploring your argument) are either failing to consider a number (more likely hundreds or thousands) of inputs that result in mass-killings a, or we're falsely assuming each of these killings happens in a vacuum. Ever consider the notoriety of one to be the inspiration for another? If that is the case even in a few of these incidents, the weapon used doesn't matter since the choice of weapon was not motivation for doing it in the first place. Without understanding why we can never hope to make effective policy.

I would also remind you that this phenomenon has taken about 450 people in the last 7 years (I am not including domestic incidents). Not to take anything away from those who lost their lives, but it is absolutely ridiculous to remove a bill-of-rights garaunteed freedom from 330,000,000 million Americans (and likely cause more deaths than we prevent) and we haven't even addressed the problem.

That's 64 people a year, or 0.0000001948% of the nation each year.


Subego, try to think bigger. When you have 330mil people in a country, things like this will happen and its very difficult to get an answer as to why. You try to stop it best you can, but you cannot apply rational thought and individual logic to this type of problem and call it a day. There's just too many people in the country with millions of factors affecting each one. We must go further in exploring what causes it if we want to stop it. Simply making guns harder to get will simply shift the problem to other metrics.

[subego]

I need to clarify. I'm not talking about mass killings, I'm talking about gun deaths.

Likewise, you keep coming back to crime rates in anti-gun cities. It seems slap you in the face obvious to me the problem there is one where I can walk three feet out of the city limits and buy all the guns I want.

This failing as a system has nothing to do with guns, it's because it's a shitty system which will never work.

You can't buy spray paint in Chicago. Does that stop graffiti? No. What do I do when I need spray paint, which I often do? I go to Evanston, which is the first town north of the Chicago city limits.