ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Debunking The Arguments Against Gun Control

Updated on January 5, 2013

Intro

As the title should suggest I am in favor of gun control. I strongly believe that with the correct level of controls in effect, we can preserve the citizens right to bear arms while still protecting ourselves from the violence that is far too common today. Both sides have a wealth of statistics to point to that prove whichever side they happen to identify with, and statistics and studies that seem in favor of the other side are dismissed as inaccurate, or biased in some way. Unfortunately this is true of all statistics, it is very easy to stack numbers to look the way you want them to. The most impartial of studies can be very misleading if you don't understand exactly what was studied, and how it was done. Acknowledging this I wanted to challenge myself to support gun control in a convincing manner without using any statistics, only easily understood logic. So I will tackle several points below that are common in the constant debates on this issue and discuss how simple logic without the need of any statistics to back it up can help understand things.

If We Outlaw Guns, Then Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

This is one of the favorite arguments of the pro-gun crowd. However it just doesn't hold up to even simple logic. First and foremost there has never been any proposed regulation or law that would have called for disarming law enforcement. I like my cops well armed and well trained, and so does every other law abiding citizen. Soldiers are another point, there's never even been a suggestion that our soldiers should not be armed.

Criminals in every country get guns, less in some than others because it is more difficult but the point remains that guns are used by criminals around the world. Even accepting this it still logically follows that making guns less prevalent with the citizens in general would also lower the amount of them used in crimes. Criminals aren't born with a warrant for their arrest already active, they started somewhere, and when that average citizen decides that times are hard enough to justify robbing a convenience store to make ends meet, if they didn't have access to a gun already, they would be far more likely to give up because it's not so easy to do, or use a far less deadly weapon at the very least. Why would a criminal have a gun though? When they expect armed response, or think they need a gun in order to pull off whatever crime they have in mind. This is why you don't really hear about unarmed bank robberies often, the criminals know someone there will be armed and if they want to rob the place they need better firepower or more people. If you take the above statement to the utmost extreme and ban all guns, why would criminals continue to use guns at all? There would still be some who already have a gun and figure why not, but being less likely to meet armed resistance they will also be less likely to fire themselves. Criminals are not going to needlessly add charges against them if they don't need to in order to steal whatever they were after, and for the vast majority of criminals out there murder was never their intent, it just came to that when things went badly. With guns as unregulated and easy to acquire as they are now we practically force anyone considering criminal acts of any kind to involve a firearm if they have any chance of success. Also due to the large amount of guns out there, criminals even need guns to protect themselves from other criminals, who they know will also be armed. It's a self supporting system that can't end without lowering the number of guns in circulation significantly.


The Laws Here Worked, or The Laws Here Didn't

It is simple fact that local laws inside our country will never be able to effectively limit ownership of anything, least of all guns. Laws on a state or lesser level can't be effective because our states and cities have open borders and are incapable of limiting what is brought in by normal citizens. Guns are not cheap items that anyone interested in wouldn't be willing to drive even a few states away from home to get if they had to. Then they are free to bring them home with virtually no risk of being caught as there are no inspections of any kind to worry about. As long as there are states or cities with less regulation there will be people going there to get their guns with less hassle, even if those guns will be illegal back at home.

As things stand now with so many differing local laws it's almost impossible to own a gun and not be in violation of some law if you ever travel any distance with it. Laws are numerous and confusing before you ever consider the conflicts with other areas near and far. The only way to make things less confusing and even possible for legal gun owners to stay legal is to make gun laws at the national level. No matter how liberal they end up being, this is what we desperately need, consistent laws across the nation regarding guns.

Gun Suicides Are Meaningless In This Debate, Suicidal People Will Kill Themselves Anyway

Many shooting deaths each year are from suicides, both sides agree with that, though the people in support of less gun control rightly say that a suicidal person will find a way. The reality though is that the gun is far more immediate, easier to access, to setup, and to use. A shot to the head and nobody is rescuing you, you're already dead by the time anyone could possibly find out, even if they heard the shot. Almost no other method is as reliable and instantaneous, and often people are found and saved then receive treatment they badly needed when they don't use a gun. The gun effectively eliminates possibility of failure and treatment. A person with a momentary desire to kill themselves and a gun will die, while the same person trying to hang themselves can fail for any number of reasons, and even if everything goes right it takes a while to setup during which time they could back out. Even if they do go through with it, if someone is close enough to hear and investigates it is entirely possible to save them. Pills work the same way, it takes longer to gather and consume the pills, then they need time to take effect. All that extra time is time the person is thinking about their situation and could back out. There is also the possibility that their particular selection won't even be fatal, or that someone discovers them in the act or soon enough after to save them. None of this can happen with the suicide by gun.

Switzerland Issues Guns To Every Household And Has Virtually No Violence

This is one I really can't believe the gun advocates use so much, but I see it at least once a week restated somewhere. It is based on truth yes, but far from the way it sounds. Another statement that is basically true would be "Switzerland does not allow any citizen without law enforcement or military training to handle firearms." The big difference here is that Switzerland has virtually no citizens that don't have military training. You don't enlist in the army there, you turn 18 and go to your mandatory training where you are issued your equipment including a firearm after being examined for fitness and competence, and if you fail those checks you don't get a gun. Aside from the drastically different way they handle the army and the far better training they get than citizens here do, the Swiss are a fundamentally different people than Americans. Crime is very rare in general there, communities are small and mostly self governed with little interference from the national level leaders. Sad as it is to admit they are for more moral than Americans as well. The entire Swiss public transit system is maintained by the fares it collects from those using it, they don't use tax dollars to support it at all. Swiss public transportation all relies on the honor system to collect those fares. There isn't any kind of system in place to stop you from riding for free, just virtually nobody does. Try that anywhere in America and see how long you stay in operation.

The Second Amendment Is To Protect Citizens From Government

This is probably the most disturbing argument in favor of guns I have heard. Basically they are saying that they would use their guns to fight back against laws they don't agree with. First that's not a battle that you are capable of winning as a citizen no matter how well armed. Having guns can't under any circumstance protect you from government tyranny. The government has bigger guns, more soldiers, better training, and doesn't need any of that as one private with an xbox controller and a small screen in front of him can take out a single room in your house without so much as raising a dust cloud in the next one if you are deemed enough of a threat. This is only slightly less likely to happen than anyone claiming their guns are to protect them from the government actually shooting a cop or soldier trying to enforce the law. There would be exceptions yes, but if you really try to put yourself in that situation, a cop shows up at your door and says they have a warrant to search for illegal weapons, even if they were incompetent enough to let you, would you really go grab a gun and start shooting this person who is only doing their job? Very few people could answer yes to that.

The First Thing Dictators Do Is Disarm The Public

First, they have to already be in a place of power to do that, so it can't really be the first thing they do can it? Now this would apply to an occupying army after an invasion, but think about this for a moment. The force that just wiped out your military and still has enough of a force left they feel confident to occupy the territory is not going to have any problems disarming the citizens. You are no threat to these people. Dictators are born when leaders already in power start abusing that power and claiming more and more of it. At first they are widely loved and popular, only long after things have progressed far enough to allow them to repress all resistance do the more extreme actions come about such as disarming dissidents, who by that time could well be most of the population. Our system of government simply wouldn't allow this to ever get started. Power is spread out with so many checks and balances that nothing short of an invasion and complete dismantling of our government could ever put a dictator in place.

My Guns Are No Threat To Anyone

Do you own a large enough and well built enough gun safe that nobody could ever crack it or take it elsewhere to have a better chance to open it? Are you immortal and will never age and suffer declining eyesight, or any kind of dementia? Do you carry your gun in your hand at all times and simultaneously aimed at every person near you in public? Is your home incapable of being robbed while you are not around? Is your mind fast enough to take advantage of your telekinetic abilities to control every fragment of every bullet you ever fire and guide them in harmless directions? If you answered no to anything here then your guns are a threat under the right circumstances.

If you don't use a gun safe that can't be cracked then it's entirely possible for someone to steal your gun. It doesn't even necessarily have to be a criminal breaking in. Any guest you invite into your home, any workman that comes to fix something, even your spouse or children could take your gun without your knowledge. The same applies to guns that you transport in a vehicle. Even with a safe, if it is small enough to be transported then the person intent on stealing from you (whether they know it's a gun inside or not) can simply take the safe with them and use as much time as it takes to finally get in to it. A glass front cabinet may as well be a stack of guns with a "Steal Me" sign on them, glass isn't hard to break, and even if it was made from bulletproof material, the wood around it then becomes the easiest way in, and still quite possible.

Even if you are perfectly competent and responsible with your guns now, they aren't going to go away as you get older. You will still own the same guns. What you won't have forever is perfect eyesight. Unless you die early from disease or violence, then at some point age will impact your eyes, and when that happens you can miss things you wouldn't have when you were younger that vastly change a situation's safety. I have been seeing a lot of a certain video passed around lately, congratulating an older man carrying a handgun for shooting two teens that attempted to rob a cybercafe. The pro gun people have fell in love with this video apparently and choose to ignore how horrifying it really is. This old man who apparently is legally allowed to carry a firearm in public missed the fact that the only gun they had was badly and visibly rusted and incapable of firing. There was only one gun between them, and yet without even attempting to allow them to give up he just started firing, at both of them, even the one without a gun. In a panic the two 19 year old kids dropped their weapons and while unarmed and crawling away he shot them some more. Then when they left the scene entirely and were running the old man opens the door and fires after them again. They nearly died from gunshot wounds and he didn't even face charges, not even for shooting the one that only held a bat.

If you allow anyone to pass you on the street without a gun already aimed at them and ready to fire, then that person could turn out to be a mugger. A mugger doesn't announce at 20 paces they are going to mug you and wait to see if you want to draw a weapon and defend yourself first. The first moment you know you are being mugged you will already have a gun trained on you or your companion, or there will already be a knife at someone's throat. In this situation if you have a gun the only possible things the gun can do is get stolen, get you killed when you try to pull it despite them being more ready to instantly harm you, or be missed by the mugger and either totally irrelevant or used by you to shoot a fleeing criminal who is no longer actually threatening you.

In any situation when you fire a bullet there is a possibility of ricochet and fragments that fly in unpredictable directions. You can lower these chances but nothing can eliminate them entirely, especially in urban environments where there are more surfaces that would fragment themselves or allow a bullet to bounce off. All of these instances do demonstrate some threat from your gun, and you can't make them totally safe while they are still usable as a gun. The chances of misuse, danger, or loss of your weapon vary wildly between people but there is no person who can own a weapon and it be totally incapable of being a threat to anyone else.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Your logic is impaired and circular additionally containing supposition rather than facts.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I actually re-read it after your post to be certain and could find no instances of circular logic. I would love you to point any out you have noticed. As for supposition I could also find no examples myself. If by facts you only mean statistics and studies, I know hundreds, and so would someone who is against gun control and has done the research, as I stated in the intro those are easy to twist so I avoided them here.

  • Jack Burton profile image

    Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

    Louis writes about things of which he has little to no knowledge and declares himself satisfied with his arguments. It would take a book to debunk all he has wrong, so instead I'll give you three undeniable truths.

    Truth #1: If a social deviant has marked you or your family for harm, whether it is a home invasion, stalking, rape, or just plain mugging Louis will not be there to throw himself between you and that person who will do you harm. Louis offers absolutely nothing of protection for you. Read your daily newspaper and decide who is going to protect you better.... a non-functional Louis... or a firearm that has given comfort and aid to hundreds of millions of law-abiding people over the centuries.

    Truth #2: There are approximately 80,000,000 gun owners in America. There about about 10,000 suicides with a gun each year, and about 10,000 murders with a gun. Let's double them and say there are really 40,000 combined each year.

    This means that FOUR out of every EIGHTY THOUSAND gun owners are going to hurt themselves or another. Four. That's it. If you are into percentages that is a percent of .00005.

    This means that 79,999,960 gunowners won't hurt anyone, or 99.9995 percent.

    Yet Louis wants those 99.9995 percent to be treated as criminals. They have to jump through his hoops, his regulations, his controls, as if they were the .0005 percent who were doing bad things.

    And he actually believes this is "common sense" and "reasonable." Which is why the gun owning community laugh at people such as Louis. And why he and his ilk go around wondering, "But it is soooo much common sense why don't they agree."

    Truth #3: Freedom is freedom no matter how much it is abused by a small minority. You can see that expanded in my hub, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?"

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    In my second sentence I state how I believe we can find a balance that still preserves a citizens right to bear arms while offering better protections from the violence that is becoming far too common, and yet you characterize me right off the bat as trying to make everyone defenseless and offering nothing of protection. I have purposefully avoided recommending any specific type of gun control and stuck to explaining the flaws inherent in the main arguments I am seeing tossed around about this. Like the inherent flaw in your own argument that since there are so many gun owners that don't commit any crimes we can't pass any laws about it, because that is treating them as criminals as well. You in no way differentiate gun ownership from rape, murder, or even child molestation . Replace your reference to gun owners with either of those 3 and you will see the same overwhelming ratios. In general most people aren't evil, but yes we do still need laws to protect us from those that are.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Louis

    Your logic is impaired and circular additionally containing supposition rather than facts.

    Impaired - based on your suppositions and opinions.

    circular in that they keep going back to your opinions.

    I couldn't find any clear purpose of goal for your hub.

    What is the benefit of your opinions in the subject of gun control?

    What is the ultimate issue, and how does your opinions solve the problems of the ultimate issue.

    It certainly can't be to protect the people from Random act of Violence.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Circular logic would be using a conclusion to prove itself, nothing close to that appears in this hub. As for opinions you won't find any below the introduction where I admit my bias in favor of gun control. After that the hub is simply a list of the most common arguments used to argue against gun controls, and explanations of why they are flawed. I specifically tried not to include studies or statistics as there are a glut of them for both sides that can be interpreted either way, and most people dismiss them when read for exactly that reason. In each case I have only stated facts easily deduced given circumstances I also outlined.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    These arguments are opinions, and whether they are yours, or whether you adopted them, they are just opinions.

    We have too many laws and controls on the books today, and the prisons are overflowing, yet the crimes and the violence still continue.

    Alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography and any other control has failed because the criminal element then uses it to become their new product to sell to those that want it.

    I couldn't find any clear purpose or goal for your hub.

    What is the benefit of your opinions in the subject of gun control?

    What is the ultimate issue, and how does your opinions solve the problems of the ultimate issue.

    It certainly can't be to protect the people from Random act of Violence.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    My purpose is to show how wrong these arguments are in fact. Hopefully the benefit will be in showing some of the people that see these highly emotional statements and accept them unthinkingly how wrong they actually are. I suffer no illusion that I will gain a huge audience or that this will get seen by very many people, but some will and have seen it, and hopefully at least some of them walk away more willing to question things and think about them before blindly accepting any statement just because it supports your desired conclusion. As for my purpose not being to protect from random acts of violence, I totally disagree. If we joined the rest of the world in properly regulating guns as the second amendment actually states, then we wouldn't be the world leaders in violent death that we are today. Yes there would still be violent people, but a murderous man with a knife is a lot less dangerous than one with a gun. Yes seasoned criminals would still have their weapons until such time as they get busted for anything and the cops find and take them since they are illegal. The fact stands though that most violent crimes aren't committed by career criminals. They are perpetrated by people that snap under stress or are mentally disturbed to begin with, and many of them weren't criminals at all before they decided to kill someone.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Louis

    I see you didn't post my last comment yet.

    Anyway, I thought I would go through your debunking.

    -----------

    If We Outlaw Guns, Then Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

    This is one of the favorite arguments of the pro-gun crowd. However it just doesn't hold up to even simple logic. First and foremost there has never been any proposed regulation or law that would have called for disarming law enforcement. I like my cops well armed and well trained, and so does every other law abiding citizen. Soldiers are another point, there's never even been a suggestion that our soldiers should not be armed.

    ----ib

    Everyone understands that they are not talking about the police or the military. They are talking about the private citizens.

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

    Criminals in every country get guns, less in some than others because it is more difficult but the point remains that guns are used by criminals around the world. Even accepting this it still logically follows that making guns less prevalent with the citizens in general would also lower the amount of them used in crimes.

    ---ib

    This makes no sense because it doesn't reduce the guns held by the criminals. There is no logic here.

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

    Criminals aren't born with a warrant for their arrest already active, they started somewhere, and when that average citizen decides that times are hard enough to justify robbing a convenience store to make ends meet, if they didn't have access to a gun already, they would be far more likely to give up because it's not so easy to do, or use a far less deadly weapon at the very least.

    -----ib

    There is a difference between a criminal per se, and a person with no alternatives. The latter would hardly be the majority. There are many people out there that need to feed their drug bill. Drug control hasn't worked, so these people are common.

    ----------

    Why would a criminal have a gun though? When they expect armed response, or think they need a gun in order to pull off whatever crime they have in mind. This is why you don't really hear about unarmed bank robberies often, the criminals know someone there will be armed and if they want to rob the place they need better firepower or more people. If you take the above statement to the utmost extreme and ban all guns, why would criminals continue to use guns at all?

    ------ib

    They would still use guns, and they could always get guns, just like they can get illegal drugs, or prostitutes or any other contraband.

    --------

    There would still be some who already have a gun and figure why not, but being less likely to meet armed resistance they will also be less likely to fire themselves.

    ---ib

    The police will still have guns, as well as armed guards

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

    Criminals are not going to needlessly add charges against them if they don't need to in order to steal whatever they were after, and for the vast majority of criminals out there murder was never their intent, it just came to that when things went badly.

    --------ib

    Criminals don't think about the law, because they don't intend to get caught. They have a better advantage with a gun, and they might not intend to use the gun. But the intent is assumed by the law, as in the Felony Murder Rule. They are guilty of murder regardless of their intent, if a murder is committed during their crime.

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

    With guns as unregulated and easy to acquire as they are now we practically force anyone considering criminal acts of any kind to involve a firearm if they have any chance of success.

    --------ib

    Guns are regulated today, and their are also waiting periods and background checks.

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

    Also due to the large amount of guns out there, criminals even need guns to protect themselves from other criminals, who they know will also be armed. It's a self supporting system that can't end without lowering the number of guns in circulation significantly.

    -----ib

    You really believe that the gangs are going to give up their weapons. These gangs compete with each other and they use their guns for their criminal activities. These are the drug dealers, prostitution and other criminal activity. There is a lot of money involved, and they need to protect their money. The problem here is not the guns but the control by the government on the products such as illegal drugs, prostitution etc. To solve this problem you have to deal with the users of these products. The gangs are only providing a service that is controlled by the government.

    There are millions of people in the US that are law abiding and they also own guns of many types. They are not using them illegally or for criminal purposes. The bad guys have the guns for the purpose of using them criminally. That is the difference between the two.

    We have more than enough laws today regarding firearms, and the uses of firearms. The prisons and the jails are full of those that break these laws, but this hasn't stopped others from following in their footsteps.

    So you really didn't debunk this one.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Sorry if the system somehow dropped some comment after your one 9 hours previous to this one that I did approve an hour later and respond to, it never showed me one so I couldn't approve it. I welcome discussion and only leave on the moderation to stop spammers from abusing my comments when I take extended breaks from checking hubpages for a while.

    I realize that realistically even the pro-gun people do know that nobody is wanting to disarm the police or military, what bothers me is that this particular statement is so all inclusive to make it more emotional and that is deceptive. Untruth is untruth even if it supports your cause.

    You state it makes no sense that lowering general access to guns would lower the amount used in crimes because it doesn't lower the amount held by criminals already, but it does in several indirect methods. If certain classes of guns were outlawed entirely then as criminals get busted those would be seized and no longer in the pool of those already owned, and being outlawed while not impossible to replace it would be more difficult. The main consideration though is the fact that most crimes, especially murders are committed by first time offenders, who would have less easy access to a gun during their fit of rage or mental break if they weren't so easy to obtain in the first place. There is a reason that in a murder investigation the spouse, family, or roommate are always the first suspects, it usually turns out to be true. The crimes would still happen but with much less death (especially of those not directly being targeted) as a consequence of it.

    You also state the criminals will always get guns, and to a point I agree. The truly hardcore criminals out there will find a way to get them regardless of the laws. These people however are quite the minority. Most criminals aren't connected to huge crime syndicates that offer easy access to anything they want. Even those perpetual offenders out there are usually people who don't have resources of their own so they choose to take from others, and as such they would be least able to get guns in an environment where they are harder to obtain and therefore exponentially more expensive. Most notably your own example of people trying to feed a drug habit. If they could afford an expensive gun they wouldn't be trying to raise money for drugs, they'd just spend that money on their drug of choice instead. Even if they were able to steal a gun they would just be more likely to sell it since it would be worth more than a drug addict is likely to be able to get from the small crimes they have a chance of pulling off.

    You state criminals don't think about the law, but that's really only true in the case of true fits of rage or total mental breaks. Anyone considering breaking the law plans what they are going to do, and they consider what they believe will let them get away with it. Getaway drivers are used, masks are worn, guards are targeted first, these are things we see every day in reports of crimes around the country.

    Guns are regulated today, I do agree, but not effectively by any means. Local laws are pointless as they are so easy to bypass in the US by a simple drive to wherever has lighter requirements, or by getting someone from that area to buy for you. The background checks and waiting periods only help prevent honest people from getting a gun in a moment of anger, basically forcing them to have a cool-down period. Anyone that would fail a background check knows going in that they will and usually won't bother. There are too many ways to get around that for it to matter much, only licensed dealers at gun shows follow these rules, and a few bad eggs among even them will sidestep the rules. While I've never been a gun enthusiast myself I was raised in southern Georgia, so most everyone I know is into them in some way or other. I've been drug to a few gun shows over the years. I'm not relying on hearsay, or some article I read in the evil mainstream media. I've seen hundreds of guns change hands without so much as a handshake and introduction, right out in the open, and nobody batted an eyelash or even looked around to see if they were being watched.

    I do agree with you that gangs aren't going to be giving up their guns any time soon, but when even the gang members with no arrests yet can't claim their gun as legal it will be easier to get them and the guns off the streets. I also agree that we have more than enough laws today regarding firearms. Far more than enough, and that's the problem with them. While I believe that we eventually need much stricter gun laws, I would happily (as would most gun control advocates) support national legislation that wipes out all these state and local laws with one law across the land, no matter how permissive that law was at first. Once the laws are consistent then society will naturally over time modify it in the slow way our laws usually evolve till the correct balance is found.

  • Jack Burton profile image

    Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

    Louis sez: In my second sentence I state how I believe we can find a balance that still preserves a citizens right to bear arms while offering better protections from the violence that is becoming far too common, and yet you characterize me right off the bat as trying to make everyone defenseless and offering nothing of protection.

    Jack replies: Actually, Louis can’t find anything in my post that characterizes this. I merely pointed out that HE is not going to be there to protect someone and their family. If he wants to dispute what I actually wrote that is good. If he wants to dispute something that I did NOT write… we’ll have to wonder why.

    Louis sez: I have purposefully avoided recommending any specific type of gun control and stuck to explaining the flaws inherent in the main arguments I am seeing tossed around about this.

    Jack replies: Avoiding “specific” recommendations doesn’t get you off the hook for preferring gun control.

    Louis sez: Like the inherent flaw in your own argument that since there are so many gun owners that don't commit any crimes we can't pass any laws about it, because that is treating them as criminals as well.

    Jack replies: Again, never said you “can’t”. I merely pointed out the fruitlessness of such an effort. If you are concerned about the people speeding in a 20 MPH school zone, reducing the speed limit to 15 MPH is not going to solve your problem.

    And btw, why do you want to treat the 99.999 percent of the law abiding gun owners the same as criminals, eh.

    Louis sez: You in no way differentiate gun ownership from rape, murder, or even child molestation .

    Jack replies: And here is the ultimate in “common sense” to people such as Louis. Does my owning a gun hurt anyone? No. Not a single person. Yet, Louis wants to compare me and those 99.999 percent of gun owners to those who actually DO hurt people. He feels the act of merely owning a gun should not be differentiated from rape, murder or even child molestation.

    His words… right there in black and pixel.

    Louis sez: Replace your reference to gun owners with either of those 3 and you will see the same overwhelming ratios. In general most people aren't evil, but yes we do still need laws to protect us from those that are.

    Jack replies: Okay… let’s pass laws that require mandatory castration for 15 year old males since YOU cannot know which one will grow up to be a rapist or child molester. Let’s require mandatory DNA and fingerprint testing at birth to help solve murders. Let’s require all homes be searched by the police every other month at random so that any crime can be caught.

    Those of us who are “not evil” surely won’t mind since we need to protect ourselves from those who are.

    [The difference in the concept of protecting ourselves from people who DO evil instead of those we happen to be afraid MIGHT DO evil based upon our personal and irrational fears has never once crossed Louis’ mind.]

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Your entire first so called truth boiled down to nothing more than a personal insult saying that I won't be around if you are in danger, I am non-functional, and I offer nothing of protection. That is what I was responding to. Nowhere in what I wrote did I recommend any amount of gun control specifically so where do even get a basis for suggesting I want everyone to be without a weapon of any sort?

    What I actually did was present several of the most prevalent arguments that pro-gun people are using in their favor, and showed how they barely make any sense if you actually think it through. You have in none of your comments defended even a single one of the things the hub was actually about, only brought up new points that while not as commonly thrown about are equally misrepresenting reality.

    My comment that you in no way differentiated gun ownership from rape, murder, or child molestation was intentionally as emotionally charged a statement as yours was that passing any laws about guns equates to treating the vast majority of gun owners as criminals. The exact same argument fits just as well to any law on the books, and yet we accept all of those laws as necessary. Your ridiculous added examples this time around don't help make your point in the slightest. You aren't demonstrating how regulating something that most people will not misuse but some will hurts anyone. You only provide examples of mutilation and equate that to not being able to own whatever gun you want.

    Again you take my explanation of why these specific statements are wrong, and all on your own add that I must want nobody to have guns, something that I haven't even hinted at in the article, or any of the comments. This is not an all or nothing issue, and defending it only as such severely limits you and makes your arguments invalid pretty much all the time. Most people on both sides agree there should be some regulation, we just disagree on how much and what kinds. Few actually want an all or nothing solution, and I'm certainly not one of them.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Louis

    Thanks for the reply, but you are getting further off the track with each comment.

    Government Control doesn't work to prevent crimes. It only creates more laws.

    It is a FACT that Alcohol Prohibition didn't work.

    Even tobacco has been teflon proof, so in the last fifty years it still lingers on.

    Prostitution is still doing business.

    Pornography is now available on the Internet.

    Marijuana still is being used illegally.

    So why would gun control do any better.

    And I disagree with all you examples in your last comment, as they are not the issues.

    Especially the one where you think that criminals only ignore the law when they are in a mental state. The criminal intent overrides the fear of the law.

    BTW, in CA there have been many bank robberies where there were no weapons involved at all. One robber, had dozens of successful robberies.

    The point is that you have to focus on the criminal mind and not their choice of instruments to commit their crimes.Gun control is like a non selective antibiotic that kills everything.

    They tried this technique with the invading fire ants from South America in this county. They wound up killing everything, as well as the predators of the fire ants. So they gave that up in 1975. Now they are working on killing fire ants without killing other organisms.

    I know that you think you plan will work, but actually it is more help to the criminals.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Federal authorities said Friday that they're searching for a man who robbed one bank in the Phoenix metropolitan area and tried to rob two others using fake bombs.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Well since the entire effort to prevent crime and enforce laws around the world is carried out by governments, and in fact is the most basic thing that makes something a government, I'd really be curious to hear what you think prevents crime.

    Criminal intent by no means erases all awareness that laws and law enforcement exist. If your argument held any truth at all then criminals wouldn't be capable of preparing escape methods, would never try to obscure evidence, there would never be any planing beyond the "I really should rob that place" stage, and that is clearly not the case or law enforcement's job would be so much easier. There are all kinds of criminals out there, not every one is a crazed maniac incapable of thinking of anything past their most pressing current desire. In fact those are the ones we catch the easiest and tend to become lifelong residents in prisons, which returning to your first point are government controlled.

    Even in your own example the person did use a weapon, the fact that it was fake in no way changes that. He didn't walk in and without leveling any type of threat or using any sort of intimidation just politely ask them to give him money. He convinced them that something he had was a weapon even though it turned out not to be, so far from proving a point here. Again, disproving your theory that criminal intent overrides fear of the law. This person went to all the trouble to avoid identification that has led to him not being found yet, and prepared a fake bomb to use in the heist to give him a chance of getting away. Conclusive proof that he was considering how to get around law enforcement when planning his crime.

    Really love your closing this time stating that I think my plan will work, despite the fact that neither in the original article or any comment have I advanced any sort of plan. I have only responded to a few very misleading statements that pro-gun advocates seem to be in love with.

  • Anarchos profile image

    Anarchos 4 years ago from Texas

    The further I got in the Hub the less sense it made.

    The first statement about only criminals owning guns you attempt to refute by claiming that law enforcement will still have guns. This is meaningless in the midst of an assault or home invasion. The chances of a police officer being able to stop a crime in progress are excessively small.

    Criminals will use whatever it is that they think gives them an advantage. Anyone robbing a bank will have a gun regardless of their fear of others having a gun since their crime relies on intimidation and people find guns very intimidating.

    In the case of a man raping a women he often doesn't need something like a gun. He can rely on brute force and sometimes numbers (such as the case of the gang rape in India, a country with very strict gun laws and heavy police presence).

    The one thing from your piece that I did agree with was that people should be better trained to use firearms. In fact, I think the Second Amendment could be construed to require the state's to train their citizens in the proper use of firearms.

    Also, having known someone who worked in a hospital and having known someone who successfully committed suicide your statements about gun suicide are naive at best. Putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger does not guarantee death. Many small calibers will not be able to fully penetrate the skull and will ricochet instead. The noise alone increases the chances of someone intervening in the suicide attempt.

    On the other hand the person I knew who committed suicide did so with pills. It is not difficult at all to overdose on many over the counter medications. Tylennol will shut down your liver in sufficient quantities and if you work in a medical profession (as she did) it is even easier. To say that reducing gun ownership will have any impact on suicides is spurious.

    The only defense against criminals is vigilance. Part of that means being sufficiently capable of defending yourself and others. A woman was murdered recently while on the phone with 911. Police arrived 45 minutes later and you can hear her pleading on the call as her ex-husband breaks down her door. Her phone call didn't save her a gun may not have either but it sure would have improved her chances.

    Meanwhile, a woman in California shot a would-be home invader dead while on the line with a 911 operator when he would not stop crawling through her window. In Oklahoma the same incident occurred when a woman gunned down the man who was seeking to take advantage of her husband's recent death to do God-knows-what to her and her infant.

    And then there is the famous Suzana Hupp incident where her parents were gunned down in front of her despite her possession of a gun. The crazed man who decided to go on a killing spree kept his gun with him, Suzana left hers in her car in order to comply with the law. While there's no guarantee that she could have stopped him it certainly would have made the playing-field a little more level.

    People have a fundamental right to defend themselves against those who would harm them. It is up to them what is required to do so. While there is always space to discuss how weaponry is handled it is unjust to disarm those seeking to defend themselves in the hopes that it will reduce those who wish to do harm.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    As you yourself state criminals will use whatever they think they need to have an advantage. If they think it likely you could have a gun, they will have a bigger gun, or more bullets, or a partner with the same. Nothing can ever be done that makes everyone 100% safe, but anything we do that limits the overall amount of guns out there will have a similar effect in the criminal community as well from many factors, not the least of which is that they won't NEED them as much to achieve the same result. They would also be harder to acquire for most criminals who at the end of the day are just poor people with less concern of being arrested than desire to take things from other people. They don't have unlimited resources to smuggle guns into the country or connections to any secret black markets. These things exist, but only because they're hard to get access to for anyone, if it was otherwise they would have been dismantled by now. The main point still stands though, the blanket statement that only the criminals would have guns, is an outright lie made purposefully vague and emotional to make a point. There would still be arms in the hand of people that are not criminals. On top of that gun control has never been an all or nothing issue, nobody has ever even proposed totally disarming citizens, which is the point this statement tries to assert as being the consequence of gun control.

    I'm really surprised you would actually find issue with my statements that gun suicides are far more likely to succeed (I never said always, just more likely), faster use, and cause a faster death that basically eliminates chances of being rescued by others or even yourself if you have a change of heart after beginning. I never tried to say other methods can't work, but they have a far lower success rate, take longer to take effect, and in most cases take more preparation time beforehand. All of these combined make the person far more likely to back out as most suicides are spur of the moment things by people who don't fully want to succeed. Other methods can work, and are easy enough to do. They just aren't as immediate and have nowhere near the success rates that gun suicides do.

    You do give some good examples of instances where a gun could have made a difference, but nobody can ever be sure since it didn't happen that way. These examples evoke fear and make people more open to suggesting anything that would have made them safer. In all the same cases having had bars on the windows, or a stronger door would have accomplished the same thing with no loss of life or danger to anyone from a stray shot. A dog would have been even better.

    The one example of an incident in a "gun free zone" I actually stand firmly with you on. Gun free zones are big target areas before they were declared "gun free" and the criminals aren't going to stop carrying. Until we do something to the problem as a whole, just putting up a sign so law abiding citizens can't react to society as it actually is rather than the fantasy world those placing the sign live in is stupid in the extreme.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Louis

    You still didn't answer

    Thanks for the reply, but you are getting further off the track with each comment.

    Government Control doesn't work to prevent crimes. It only creates more laws.

    It is a FACT that Alcohol Prohibition didn't work.

    Even tobacco has been teflon proof, so in the last fifty years it still lingers on.

    Prostitution is still doing business.

    Pornography is now available on the Internet.

    Marijuana still is being used illegally.

    So why would gun control do any better.

    And I disagree with all you examples in your last comment, as they are not the issues.

    Especially the one where you think that criminals only ignore the law when they are in a mental state. The criminal intent overrides the fear of the law.

    BTW, in CA there have been many bank robberies where there were no weapons involved at all. One robber, had dozens of successful robberies.

    The point is that you have to focus on the criminal mind and not their choice of instruments to commit their crimes.Gun control is like a non selective antibiotic that kills everything.

    They tried this technique with the invading fire ants from South America in this county. They wound up killing everything, as well as the predators of the fire ants. So they gave that up in 1975. Now they are working on killing fire ants without killing other organisms.

    I know that you think you plan will work, but actually it is more help to the criminals.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I responded directly to every point you listed here right after your last comment. Scroll up a few to see my response if you somehow missed it. (this comment system could use some improvement). I did respond to another comment since your last one, maybe you thought that was my response to you.

  • Anarchos profile image

    Anarchos 4 years ago from Texas

    Louis, when you wrote: "This is one of the favorite arguments of the pro-gun crowd. However it just doesn't hold up to even simple logic. First and foremost there has never been any proposed regulation or law that would have called for disarming law enforcement." You implied that non-law enforcement would be disarmed.

    Then you state that criminals are more likely to carry guns because they are afraid the people they mean to victimize might be armed. This means they would be less likely to carry guns if they did not have that fear. This has a number of problems.

    First, coming off the first point law enforcement would still be carrying. So wouldn't criminals feel the need to carry in retaliation just the same? Why would they disarm themselves in this way if they are not 100% certain no one trying to stop them will be armed?

    Second, it assumes that criminals wouldn't seek the best weapon possible for their purpose. If you're trying to control a dispersed crowd, in say a bank or convenience store, or simply trying to threaten someone at a distance then you're going to choose a gun.

    Third, it assumes criminals are rational. Not all of them are. With the exception of the mass-murderer in Norway it appears that most of these recent shooters have been on the fringes of sanity to put it mildly.

    I think your statement about gun suicide is mere speculation. I don't have any data to refute it but experience has not shown me that gun suicides aren't necessarily more successful than any other method. If someone really wants to kill themselves the most sure way is to severe an artery. If you have some data saying that the suicide rate is more "successful" with guns I'd like to look it over.

    I don't see how suggesting a gun can be an equalizer in the criminal-victim equation evokes any more fear than putting bars on all the windows (fire hazard) or installing blast-proof doors.

    Even if you had all these safety measures at your home what happens once you step outside? That girl in India was with her friend on a bus. Two against six. Not much of a fight. Could a gun, or knife for that matter, have saved her? Not necessarily but it certainly would have improved her chances.

    Again, the primary reason why individuals are allowed to carry weapons (guns, knives, tasers) is because there is always a chance, no matter how worry-free your life is, that you will be attached and no one else may be there to save you.

    Sure, there's space to discuss rules around obtaining fire arms or maybe even about calibers. But no one should be able to rob would-be victims of an opportunity to defend themselves and in many cases guns are the most effective equalizer.

    I take self-defense not because I'm paranoid but I recognize that I might someday be in a situation when I need to defend myself or someone else. So far I have chosen not to carry a gun but I would never tell someone who felt like it made them safer they could not carry. Particularly a woman.

    And that is my case against gun-control. That rich politicians being driven around in their armored cars, surrounded by body-guards, and protected with the force of law have no right to tell a less fortunate individual that if they do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves (own and carry a gun) they are a criminal and will be treated as such.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I pointed out that no one ever proposed an unarmed police force to point out that their blanket statement that "only" criminals would have guns was just outright false. I also gave the example of military, and nowhere did I suggest we needed to disarm all citizens either. The all inclusive, all or nothing nature of this statement is similar to most of what you will hear from those against gun control. Someone says we need more gun control, or at least some that actually works, and they instantly jump in declaring that we're trying to take away all their guns. Nobody is trying that, but our current system is beyond broken.

    I also in that same section point out that while criminals will still attempt to get and use guns, and many will already have them, they will become increasingly harder to get over time, very few criminals really have access to black market dealers or the funds to deal with them if they did. If they had that kind of money they'd likely not be trying to steal things. Yes there are some rich criminals, and others that have organized crime connections, but most crimes are committed by desperate people with no connections, and if we had stricter controls on the guns out there, less access, better background checks, and most importantly accountability for keeping guns you choose to own out of criminal hands, then these people would have little to no access to new weapons. As they naturally were removed from circulation with no more than our police do already the supplies just wouldn't be as available to replenish them.

    I have tried to not include studies or statistics on purpose because you can find hundreds of those with conflicting conclusions for either side of the argument, I will provide one link though here in the comments in answer to the suicide stats because you specifically asked for that.

    http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-...

    It wasn't by any means speculation, and if you think about it, not everyone will even know how to find an artery to cut, and even if they do hit an effective one dying from blood loss is far from instant.

    I was operating on memory when writing this but double checked just now and was able to find three different safe models of window bars with a quick release inside, and well out of reach of the window from outside without going past the first page of search results. Despite that I still stand by my statement here in the comments that a dog would have been much better anyway. Forget the bars, adopt a mutt.

    As for self defense though I have never actually said everyone should be disarmed, just tried to prove how wrong these particular arguments I covered in the hub are. We have many forms of non-lethal protection that could be more widely available, such as the tasers you mentioned yourself. Tighter control on guns doesn't mean doing away with them entirely, and especially in the world of today it in no way stops someone from carrying a weapon to defend themselves. It does limit how lethal that weapon can be for some of the people. Not that I'm suggesting this, only pointing out that it could be done, but the law could even end up saying everyone can have handguns, but having anything but rubber bullets outside of a firing range is a crime. There are infinite possibilities of things that could be done to limit the danger from all the guns in circulation, and nobody has been asking for an all or nothing law, yet that's usually what arguments against gun control come down to, trying to imply that all guns are at risk if we give an inch.

  • ib radmasters profile image

    ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

    Gun control is not the solution to violent crime because it doesn't go to the root cause of it.

    The problem is not the NRA or the Law Abiding gun owner.

    I have written my own hub on the root cause.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You blame gangs as the root cause, but gangs exist around the world, drugs which you mention also exist worldwide, the problem with mass killings doesn't. Just look at Australia, their last mass killing was 16 years ago. Did they wipe out the gangs or drugs? Nope, they put much tighter controls on guns and are working on a 16 year streak of not a single mass killing. This in a country with less than one law enforcement officer for every 1,600 citizens.

  • Anarchos profile image

    Anarchos 4 years ago from Texas

    I made the comment about fire hazard just to be difficult. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to dislocate bars from your window whilst trying to escape a fire.

    On to the point of criminals not having very good access to black markets. That statement is contradictory on its face. The reason a market is black is because it is illegal, therefore, those participating are criminals. If you ban guns a black market will arise and seek out customers. Just like what happened with alcohol prohibition and just like happens now with drugs. They are shipping in massive amounts of drugs in semi-submersibles.

    The title of your Hub was "Debunking the Arguments Against Gun Control" but I guess you biggest problem was you didn't define "gun control". When opening with your statement that no one is proposing that law-enforcement be disarmed (though I think that should be a condition of disarming citizens) it implies that gun control means not allowing average citizens to possess a firearm. And then the rest of the Hub follows from there.

    The reason I oppose "gun control" is that I believe that every individual has a fundamental right to take the steps they feel are necessary to secure themselves and their property. I don't believe that some individuals have a right to infringe on the rights of others even if they call themselves "public servants" or "officials".

    If you don't means disarmament of average citizens then what do you mean? Disarmament of some of them? Based on criteria designed by whom?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    It's in no way contradictory to point out that most people committing crimes are not part of organizations that provide access to these types of things, and also usually don't have massive resources of their own. Yes these types of criminals do exist but they are in the minority. A few hundred or less for a gun makes sense for your common robbery, but in an environment that makes them more scarce and therefore most costly the potential profits haven't changed only how much it would cost to get a gun. It would have an effect on how many are used.

    Yes my title stated I was debunking arguments against gun control. Then in the intro I explain I would take some of the most common statements made by the pro gun crowd and show how they just don't make sense. Then I put headings over each section specifying the argument I was refuting. I never said citizens should be totally disarmed and even mentioned in my second sentence that I believe we can preserve the right to bear arms while still protecting ourselves.

    Free speech is a right, and yet nobody complains that we put limits on that as well. Nobody's right to stand up in a crowded theater and yell "fire" is being protected, and nobody is campaigning against that sensible limit to free speech. You can't air just anything on radio or television because censorship puts limits on free speech in these instances. Sensible limits don't erase rights, but they are accepted when we talk about anything but guns.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    If gun control works, why are there so many murders in Chicago?

    If we factor out the drug gangs killing each other, which accounts for over 70%, gun crime in the US is actually fairly low, and the average citizen's chance of being shot is near zero.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    As I mentioned in the hub itself and several times since in the comments, local laws are not, and can't be effective in the slightest. There are no border checks making sure that nobody brings illegal guns into a city from outside. A local law is less than useless and not at all any indication of how the laws can or can't have an effect since they are impossible to enforce in any meaningful fashion. Also gangs and drug related crime don't account for even close to 70% of gun crime in the US unless you are counting being mad as a drug. I did find where this talking point originated though, it was a report about violence statistics in 1976 and it only stated that 70% of gang related homicides during arguments were with firearms. Even in Chicago only roughly 30% of reported gun violence is directly related to gangs.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    Again, the notion that America's streets are dangerous is wrong, because you are over twice as likely to be assaulted in the UK and twice as likely in Australia.

    Most US crime is committed by our large inner city minority black on black and Hispanic on Hispanic gang crime, while both the UK and Australia are over 90% white and have tiny minorities.

    BTW, UK and Australian criminals know their victims are not armed, so they assault them, and blade crime is way up.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "Also gangs and drug related crime don't account for even close to 70% of gun crime in the US unless you are counting being mad as a drug."

    Call it inner city minority gun crime then. Young black and Hispanic inner city males commit right at 70% of all gun murders in the US, and their victims are also minorities.

    Young black males alone commit half of all US murders although they make up only about 4% of the population.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You are very far off the mark on all respects here. Assaults in the UK and Australia are practically unheard of for the general population. They have their own gang problems yes, but their gang conflicts don't tend to have collateral damage and stay inside the gangs involved. I have talked to many current residents of both regions and have yet to find anyone who even knew a person that had been the victim of or even witnessed an act of violence above a fist fight themselves in either the UK or Australia. The spin on blade violence has always been a real stretch of the facts, in both cases blade attacks are a higher percentage of violent crimes after they passed stricter gun laws. Of course the percentage of crimes using blades went up when a large number of the criminals were no longer able to get guns. The overall crime and violent crime rates still went down, by a lot, but yes a larger percentage of what is left is done with knives.

    You are also wrong about the amount of crime committed by young inner city minorities. It is nowhere near the huge margin you are claiming. Most prisons around the country actually have a fairly even mix of most other races, but as in the rest of the country the whites outnumber the rest in almost every case. I actually have a relative in prison right now who has been shuffled to 8 different facilities over the last 6 years and in every one there were more whites than any other two races added together.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "You are also wrong about the amount of crime committed by young inner city minorities"

    On the contrary, I am right. Young black males make up only about 4% of the US population but commit over half of all US homicides:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...

    Young Hispanic males commit almost 20%.

    You can't argue with the statistics, and I've been involved with this for years.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "You are very far off the mark on all respects here. Assaults in the UK and Australia are practically unheard of for the general population."

    Source?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    If you read the chart you actually linked there it only attributes 38% of homicides to black people and doesn't break it down to show black males which would have to be lower since some of that has to be the females as well.

    As for my source as I mentioned in the hub I don't want to start a war of links here, it was only about what does and doesn't make sense, and specifically about the arguments I listed and how little sense they made if you stopped to think about them. I also mentioned that my statement in the comment was based on conversations with citizens of those respective countries. I currently have a guest staying with me from the UK and the first time guns came up in conversation around him he instantly turned pale and looked like he was going to wet himself then asked if I had a gun there. I didn't and told him as much then he laughed it off, not exactly the reaction of someone used to being around violence. When asked specifically about it he said you read about it or hear about it on the news but never see it, it's always gangs on other gangs or drug deals gone wrong. This is pretty close to what I always hear when engaging people from these countries in conversation about our violence issues here and how things play out for them in their neck of the woods. Go search youtube for any video about how the violence in Australia/UK rose after they put tighter controls on guns and check out the comments. Most right wing sites that embed the video will go to great pains to use an embed type that won't let you easily click over to view the video on youtube from their site directly because they don't want to expose those comments which are filled with locals laughing at these distortions of truth. It's also more than a little misleading when they talk about how the "violence" got worse then quote statistics of all violent crime but don't mention deaths. That's what we care about, people dying. I could care less how many people got broken noses, or a hand print on their cheek, or even a few stitches. The ones that lost their life are what matters. Injuries heal, dead is dead.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "As for my source as I mentioned in the hub I don't want to start a war of links here, it was only about what does and doesn't make sense, and specifically about the arguments I listed and how little sense they made if you stopped to think about them"

    In other words, you just made it up according to what 'makes sense' in your own biased viewpoint.

    Got it.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Logic is not an opinion it is simply facts that lead one from another. If you see someone spill a drink on their shirt it is not an opinion that their shirt is wet, it is a logical conclusion. The arguments I have so far put forward both in the hub and in my comments have the same basis in fact. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion about anything only pointed out the lack of facts in arguments that are nonsensical in the extreme.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "Logic is not an opinion it is simply facts that lead one from another."

    Translation:

    I reserve the right to just make things up.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I guess to someone that refuses to see anything that doesn't back their opinion it would seem so. And the preceding sentence was an example of an opinion, your arguments carry more weight when you understand the terms you use to make them.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    In the end, we have a natural right to life, a natural right to protect that life, and a natural right to the means of protecting that life.

    The Founding Fathers enshrined the right to arm ourselves with the Second Amendment, so if you don't like it, repeal the Second Amendment.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You only have to make it two sentences into the hub to read that I'm not in favor of taking all guns, this has been the go to dodge of those against gun control for a long time now. It is not an all or nothing issue, and while it does make it easier to argue against, that still doesn't make it true. The first amendment doesn't protect people making terroristic threats, doesn't prevent the prosecution of slander, doesn't allow anything we want to be put on radio or television without censorship, and doesn't protect anyone's right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Every single right in the constitution has legally recognized limits, and the right to bear arms is no different, and likewise doesn't need to be repealed to be limited.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    The SCOTUS said that the arms commonly held by the people are protected, which would include all those that the Democrats want to ban.

    Again, if you oppose the Second Amendment, just repeal it.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    They determined no such thing, it was only decided that the right to bear arms being specific to militias wasn't relevant for the times when their ruling was made and would extend to the general population. Also wrong on your other point, the only proposed bans currently are on assault style weapons which account for less than 1% of the privately owned guns in the US, that makes them far from common.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    There will be no ban on so-called 'assault' rifles. Congress knows it will be unconstitutional, and they also remember what happened the last time they banned a rifle...they lost Congress.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You mean the last time when they did pass an assault weapons ban, and it wasn't deemed unconstitutional? Who is this they that supposedly lost Congress then? When the first assault weapons ban passed there was barely a mention made about it afterwards, and this is the first time I've ever heard it blamed for even one congressional seat changing hands. The ban on "assault" weapons is a moot point anyway as long as the universal background checks and databases sharing information things go into effect. The vast majority of the small minority of gun owners that have assault weapons now, won't pass the mental health checks.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "You mean the last time when they did pass an assault weapons ban, and it wasn't deemed unconstitutional?"

    That was before the Heller decision, when the left all proclaimed that the Second Amendment covered only a 'collective' right. Heller proclaimed that it was indeed an individual right and that a ban on all handguns was not a 'reasonable' regulation.

    Banning certain 'military looking' rifles simply because they look scary to women like Dianne Feinstein (and to men who act like women) is not 'reasonable'.

    BTW, the term 'universal background check' is a fraud, since it will only cover law abiding gun owners and not the criminals it supposedly targets. It is in fact, backdoor gun registration, and the only purpose for that is eventual confiscation.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    The Heller decision only proclaimed that the portion of the law requiring that handguns at home be kept in a non-functional state was unconstitutional. Not only does it not in any way rule out the banning of specific types of weapons, there was a clause specifically stating that this decision was not to be taken to mean no weapons could be banned or limited.

    Directly quoted from the Heller decision...

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "The Heller decision only proclaimed that the portion of the law requiring that handguns at home be kept in a non-functional state was unconstitutional."

    On the contrary, and far more importantly, it proclaimed that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

    That completely destroyed the long time liberal claim that it only protected a collective right.

    And thank you for quoting:

    "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

    You really need to learn more about this before you make such bogus statements and claims.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    The line you refer to here outright states that Miller's belief that the kinds of weapons protected are those in common use at the time is supported by historical tradition of prohibiting dangerous or unusual weapons, which pretty much directly describes assault rifles. They account for less than 1% of arms that are privately owned, and are far more dangerous than the ones that are more common. Regardless of this however as I previously stated, once mental health checks are more integrated into the background checks, and all the loopholes that currently allow nearly half of gun sales in the US to occur without one are closed, then most that want to own assault weapons in the first place will be disqualified anyway.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "The line you refer to here outright states that Miller's belief that the kinds of weapons protected are those in common use at the time is supported by historical tradition of prohibiting dangerous or unusual weapons, which pretty much directly describes assault rifles."

    Nonsense. The semiautomatic weapons on question are not 'assault rifles' at all. That name was created by the left to fool uninformed people like you and to demonize a perfectly legal rifle with a sinister sounding title

    "They account for less than 1% of arms that are privately owned..."

    Source?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You are the only one to mention "semiautomatic weapons" in this discussion. Trying to make you opposition seem to be supporting a more radical viewpoint and defending against that is a textbook example of a straw man argument. I said assault rifles, as has all the proposed legislation that seeks to either limit or ban them. Nobody is trying to ban everything semiautomatic, and stating that only proves that the moderate controls we want to implement have no reasonable argument against them, so you have to make things sound more dire to have any way of arguing. As for my source I started with the reports from the NRA researcher Mark Overstreet used in the DC v Heller case, and from there while trying to find production figures for companies he left out I came across dozens of sites that had already done the math much as I was doing. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121222/NEWS02/7... is just one example. If you read it though, to come up with their figure of 1% they assumed that all guns would cost the same to make the math easier to estimate. This of course is wildly off as the assault weapons are invariably more expensive and in most cases by a very wide margin. Taking this in to account with the same methods used otherwise puts it far below 1% in total.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "I said assault rifles, as has all the proposed legislation that seeks to either limit or ban them."

    Fine. Ban 'assault rifles' all you want.

    Real 'assault Rifles' are military weapons not available to the public. They have a selector switch that allows full auto bursts, and they are not in civilian hands. They are on effect, already banned and have always been banned.

    You obviously don't know anything about this topic. The left began calling semi-automatic civilian rifles 'assault weapons' back in the 1980's in an attempt to demonize them and fool the unwary. It looks like they were at least partially successful.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    BTW, the less than 1% figure applies to the percentage of gun crimes that involve s0-called 'assault rifles':

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...

    Do us all a favor, and stop making up your own 'facts and statistics'.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Assault rifles in the civilian market encompasses any rifle patterned after military hardware and modified in such ways as necessary to make them legal for civilians, such as removing direct options to be fired fully automatic without modification. This term was in use long before the assault weapons ban of 94. The less than 1% figure you state is correct, but if you focus on the mass shootings that everyone is actually more concerned with the figure jumps to 100%.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "Assault rifles in the civilian market encompasses any rifle patterned after military hardware and modified in such ways as necessary to make them legal for civilians, such as removing direct options to be fired fully automatic without modification."

    Again, the source is you? I'm betting it is, and once again you present your opinion as 'fact'. There is no such thing as a civilian 'assault weapon', simply because liberals say it's so.

    "The less than 1% figure you state is correct, but if you focus on the mass shootings that everyone is actually more concerned with the figure jumps to 100%."

    Utter nonsense again. The Tucson and Virginia tech shootings were done using pistols, not rifles, as were several others. In any case, nowhere near 100%.

    Again, you can't create your own 'facts'.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I stand corrected on my usage of the word rifle in the first sentence when I should have said weapon. The handguns used in both of your examples would have qualified under the definitions of assault weapon used in the 1994 ban.

    The assault weapons ban defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

    For handguns:

    Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor

    A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold

    Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

    I do agree that this list of qualifications was far from ideal and crippled any effectiveness of the law by making cosmetic differences so important.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "The handguns used in both of your examples would have qualified under the definitions of assault weapon used in the 1994 ban."

    As always, liberals claim the right to define the language. The term 'assault weapon' is a made up liberal label for the purpose of demonizing commonly owned firearms for the gullible.

    The 1994 'assault weapon' ban was authored by liberals, and it was they who decided which ones were to be banned, using the absurd criteria you quote.

    BTW, that ban was the law when Columbine occurred. See how useless it was? That's why it was not renewed.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I nor any liberal has claimed any more right to define language than you yourself do by stating a totally different and arbitrary definition of the same term. The difference is that a bill passed into law using the definition I stated while you just disagree with it and choose to define it differently because of personal opinions. The lack of effectiveness of the previous assault weapons ban isn't being disputed at all, and I'm not now nor have I at any point tried to defend or advocate it in any way. I have only pointed out that it was never decided to be unconstitutional, and that it was irrelevant if the background check loopholes were eliminated, which is the only form of gun control that I've actually stated I am in favor of.

    The small portion of the gun owning population that does own assault weapons (as defined by the previous ban that was allowed to expire) would for the most part be unable to pass the mental health requirements so it would be a useless and redundant law in general. Those that would pass are likely responsible enough not to flip out and go on a shooting spree, and smart enough to reasonably secure their guns, and those people I have no issue with. It's the massive amount that take advantage of loopholes and databases that don't share information to get guns that they never should have been able to access in the first place that bother me. Those are the only gun owners anyone is proposing we disarm.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 4 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    While irrelevant to either side you did make me curious as to the origin of the term assault rifle, specifically when and if it came to mean the types o guns we saw banned in 94, so I did some research. You may want to break out your back issues of Guns And Ammo (you know that liberal ran anti-gun mag) and fish out the 1982 issue. There you will find a guide to semi-automatic assault weapons with the simple title of "Assault Rifles". Having seen it in print I admit to feeling a little outrage that they would demonize weapons in this way to push their agenda. This was the term used by the NRA and every gun lover on the planet until the 94 assault weapons ban was a hot political issue and the all the pro-gun people tried to distance themselves from it since it made the guns sound like what they are, and facts have no place here.

  • profile image

    csa 3 years ago

    Louis, I have been involed in law enforment for over 5 years and your arguments simply do not mesh with reality. I'm not trying to insult you at all, but reality is far different from the picture you paint. If you would like to have a public and respectful debate, I'll be happy to do so right here. For example, one point of disagreement is that criminals only use firepower (ie guns) because of the threat of personal harm from someone defending themselves. When I first read your thoughts on this, I thought it was satire. No criminal I've ever encountered conducted a threat assessment prior to commiting a crime. Most criminals are opportunists and will use any weapon availible to them. Consider this, the most highly regulated weapon free zones in the United States would be our prisons. Every measure of sucurity is in place every hour of every day to assure no weapons enter the grounds. Based on your logic, a prison should be the safest place a person could be. So how can they be such a dangerous place? No weapons, constant monitoring, regulated mail, metal detectors, cavity searches and still our prisons are some of the most dangerous places on earth. A person has a greater chance of being shot in gun free Detroit than in Afghanistan. Why? You say that it's because people bring in guns from other places right? Why would criminals need to bring guns to a gun free city like Detroit if they know law abiding citizens are unarmed? Isn't that the argument you make? Look at the big gun free cities such as Detroit, Chicago, DC, and NY. How can there be gun crime if criminals only meet force with force?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Actually I didn't state that criminals ONLY use guns because of a threat of personal harm. I said that when they expect armed response then their only option is the use of a bigger gun, or more guns themselves, and that guns are used both when they expect armed response AND when they believe the gun will be necessary to achieve whatever goal they are trying to accomplish. Absolutes barely have a place in reality and I don't suffer from the delusion that any sort of laws or regulations could ever erase all crime, or even just all gun crime, but they would help.

    I do also feel a need to respond to your comment that no criminal you've ever encountered conducted a threat assessment prior to committing a crime. I have to point out that this is quite impossible unless you have been exclusively in contact with 3 month old and younger criminals. Practically our entire life is an ongoing threat assessment. Every morning I walk past several power outlets that I could easily have saved a few steps by stopping at and urinating on them instead of going all the way to the bathroom, the threat of killing myself, stinking up my house and upsetting the rest of my family isn't worth those few saved steps though. Any person, criminal or not, that doesn't perform threat assessments both conscious and unconscious doesn't survive. If there was less threat there would be less need to be more threatening in response in order to get whatever their goal was in the first place. They did assess whatever threat their often inadequate intelligence was able to anticipate, thankfully lots of them do a poor job of it or we wouldn't be catching many criminals.

    As for your own example of the prison, first that is a very skewed example from the start, you have totally eliminated law abiding and peaceful citizens from the equation by using a prison population as your example. Even so, if you look at the topic at hand, it actually IS one of the safest places on earth, from the gun violence that has been the focus of this hub and these comments. When was the last time you heard about an inmate shooting anyone other than during a riot when they overpower guards? Yes there are plenty of stabbings, and quite a lot more of those are fatal than would be if committed by mainly law abiding citizens acting in the heat of the moment out in the real world rather than by experienced inmates versed in exactly how to kill someone with a sharpened comb. This is actually a great example in our own country of how well gun controls would work. You have concentrated the most violent people we have been able to catch, and with enough security all but eliminated firearm violence in that population. Even considering that these violent people are still going to be violent, there are far more survivors from stabbings than shootings, and exponentially less collateral damage.

  • profile image

    csa 3 years ago

    Wow. Just, wow. Let me try to wrap my mind around your response.Their ONLY option (that's an absolute) is to use a bigger gun? How about the option of not commiting the crime? How do you explain the fact that cities with the tightest gun restrictions are the ones with the most gun crime? If you take Memphis, Detroit, Chicago and DC out of the equation, the US is one of the safest place on earth from violent crime per capita. How do you account for that?

    My threat assessment point was that I have never encountered a criminal that said "well the home owner has a 9mm so I need a .45 to rob him." I'm well aware that higher level criminals plan and assess certain criminal activities, but low level criminals are opportunists. If your point were correct, then you would never hear of anyone successfully defending themselves against an armed attacker.

  • profile image

    csa 3 years ago

    As for prison, do you honestly believe it is a safe place? Seriously? Just because there are no shootings? I'm sure the guy getting beat to death feels much better know he won't get shot. You think that this is a great example of gun control? If the control is so good, why can't they control stabbing, beatings, strangulations, and other such methods of murder? How is being murdered by stabbing somehow morally superior to being shot?

  • profile image

    csa 3 years ago

    Where has gun control worked to prevent crime? I'm very interested to know. Certainly not in the UK or Austrailia. Certainly not in Detroit, Chicago or DC. How about Mexico? Nope, not there either. Where then? Your completely missing the point. Stopping guns doesn't stop violent crime and statistics prove it. That was my point about prison. Sure, there are no shootings, but the violence and death remain. It's not the tool the killer uses, it the fact that he has determined to kill. Take the gun away and they will use knives. Remove the knives and they'll use clubs. Killers kill, not guns.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Since we were discussing some hyp0thetical "criminal" then of course they would be committing a crime, otherwise they no longer qualify for our discussion, so yes, knowing there would be someone armed at their target means they must be better armed.

    As for your threat assessment point, of course most criminals are opprotunists, it's not much of a stretch to say they all are. In seeing these opprotunities though, they do judge to the best of their ability how much threat there is to themselves in doing whatever crime they are considering with the exception of course of crimes of passion and the outright insane, both of which tend to be caught quickly as they don't prepare an escape or avoid leaving evidence very well. In any case my point was that in an area where getting a gun is harder, and being faced by guns is less likely then the criminals would naturally use guns less often as well. As your prison example proves. Inmates are already the most criminal and most violent among us, and even concentrated into a super small community and only allowed interaction with others like themselves the crimes in prisons are far less devastating than those we law abiding citizens must worry about. The innocent victims just don't happen, and that's the problem with guns. They make it far too easy to hurt someone other than you intended. In prisons there are murders, of the person that was targeted, not innocent bystanders. There are also far more attacks even in prison where the intended victim, being attacked by an experienced killer, still survives because the methods they have access to are far harder to pull off successfully.

    Now for where gun control has worked, how about every other industrialized country in the world? If you eliminate the 25 most violent STATES in our nation there are still more gun deaths in the US every year than in any other industrialized nation, including active war zones. You dismiss both the UK and Australia out of hand, but obviously have no idea of conditions there. I recently hosted a guest from the UK for a few months and he was floored by how easy it was to get guns here. When I took him to a walmart to pickup some money he was having transferred to him he nearly left without even getting his money when he saw the sporting goods section. Definitely not a person that worries about gun violence when at home, he has no reason to it's more likely to be struck by lightning in the UK than to be shot.

    Australia cracked down on their guns in 1996 in response to their last mass shooting. Yes, I did say last, and meant it. There has not been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996, not a single one. And this is in a country that does still allow gun ownership, just tracks all purchases and requires licenses. They have a smaller police force for the entire country than we do in the city of New York, and these few people must cover land area the same size as the entire 48 states of the continental US. There are places in Australia that measure police response times in days, and yet they no longer live with any fear of gun violence, or being an innocent victim when someone else is the actual target, it just doesn't happen any more without so many guns and with controls on the ones that are still there. There are still crimes of course, but there are far fewer deaths because of them and fewer crimes overall as well since their crackdown on guns.

    Nobody, myself least of all, expects more gun control to eliminate violent crime. It will, and it has everywhere else in the world, lower how common it is. Also for the most part only the actual targets of the criminals get hurt. Even then they usually get hurt far less. Case in point would be the tragedy in Sandy Hook. On that exact same day a crazed man in China also attacked an elementary school. Only he had a knife. There were a few dozen injuries, not a single death, and the man was finally disarmed by a group of fourth graders ganging up on him. If only our own situation had played out the same way.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    One thing I've not seen is your definition of gun control. Exactly what do you have in mind, and can you guarantee that it will work?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I deliberately left out any specifics as to what I though things should end up looking like as far as the laws, other than my assertion that whatever laws are passed absolutely must be at the national level to have any relevance at all. The only reason we are able to keep guns out of prisons is we do control what comes into them so rigorously, there are no such controls at our state or city borders so local laws are less than pointless. If we could just take the first step of eliminating local laws that so often conflict with each other and make one standard system for the entire country, where we DO police what comes past our borders at customs, then and only then can we really start to evaluate what is and is not working in our own nation, in our culture, and in accordance with our ideals of personal freedoms. Ultimately I would like to see the day that it's nearly impossible for anyone without either military or police training to own a handgun and all other guns are tracked and easily traced back to owners from serial numbers or a bullet found at a crime scene. I may be hoping for more than is necessary to reach the goal of a safer America, but that's why I say the main point is to allow laws to have an effect first by making them national. Then our in place system of adapting laws would eventually find the balance for our country.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    So you support something you cannot or will not define?

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    I think I defined very well what I support, and even what I would hope to see happen. I do however acknowledge that what I want and what works best may differ and I am willing to adjust my thinking when there is evidence to support a new conclusion. I did very clearly say I support making our laws national so that we can see how they really work without being so easily circumvented and made pointless at the start. I also plainly stated that in my opinion the best option would be to limit handguns to those with real professional training to handle them such as law enforcement and current and former military. I also made it clear that I believe guns should be tracked and easily tied back to the owners if ever used in a crime. These are just my ideas for now however, I would be quite happy to see far less restrictive laws passed at a national level as long as they override all local statutes and finally put gun laws on an equal footing for the entire nation. Our system would naturally find the right balance from there. If the laws put in place were too loose the spike in crime around the nation would be hard to argue against and lawmakers that refused to respond to it wouldn't be lawmakers for long. The reverse is also true, if they got too restrictive and that worked the opposite here as it has everywhere else in the world and for all the rest of history and made there be more crime, the same response would force lawmakers to respond to that as well.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    In all my years of defending my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I have yet to have anyone propose a gun control law that would actually stop criminals, so if you have one, let's hear it.

    Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    And there lies the flaw in your thinking. You approach any proposed changes with the question of will this stop a determined criminal. Of course it won't, nothing will. There have been criminals for as long as there have been laws, and that won't change while we need laws to regulate human behavior in society. What regulations and laws can accomplish is making it harder to cross that line into criminal behavior for people that maybe haven't actually done so yet but feel it is currently their best option. Laws can also help make it harder to get these most destructive of weapons and thereby limit casualties of both intended victims and even more so limit collateral damage. Much like the strict controls of grenades don't keep every criminal from getting them, but we still rarely hear of them being used in crimes. Nothing is going to be perfect, and being short of perfection does not mean improvements shouldn't be considered.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    As I said, just blowing smoke. You don't have a clue.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    And which part of my comment do you disagree with? Is it that you believe laws can eliminate all crime? Or is it just that you disagree laws have any effect on crime at all? Hard to determine what exactly you are referring to when you limit your comments to a personal insult and don't bother to defend any points or put forward any of your own.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "And which part of my comment do you disagree with?"

    That you don't have to define your terms. You say you support 'gun control', but then refuse to tell us what you mean by 'gun control'.

    That's an absurdity and that's what I mean by blowing smoke.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    If you actually read my comments before trying to respond to them it would be obvious to you as to anyone else who reads this that I have defined my terms. More than once, both before you asked me to and in direct response to your request that I do so again. I support nationalization of laws, since anything less is useless. Once that is the case our system itself will work as designed and the laws will come about that work the best for us.

    I don't profess to already know what that eventual balance would be, though I strongly believe that it will have to be a lot more restrictive than most laws are now to have any effect on the epidemic of violence in this country. If given the power to choose myself what should be enacted I would restrict handguns to those with professional level training such as current and former law enforcement and military. I would centralize records and track all guns with very stiff penalties to anyone found with an unregistered gun. I would also hold owners responsible in some degree for their own guns falling into the hands of criminals. If you are robbed and a gun is stolen that you had not properly secured, you share responsibility for what happens later with that gun. While these are what I believe should be done, I freely admit that far less may work just fine and would happily change my opinions if presented with facts of how lesser laws were working on a national level.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    I see why you were reluctant. None of that would fall under the 'reasonable restrictions' in the Heller decision, and all of it would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

    When 99.97% of Americans will NOT be killed by guns in a given year, there is no crisis.

    You have no case.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    You are off a little in your desperate attempt to claim there isn't even a problem worth fixing. Using 2011 for numbers as newer ones aren't reported yet in anything but projections, there were 31,940 gun deaths in the US with a population of 311,000,000. That means 1.02% of Americans were killed by guns that year, as if the percentage should matter at all. If one person dies due to something that could have been prevented, that is a problem. When it is 32 thousand people I'd say that qualifies as a crisis.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    As I pointed out, and you apparently have trouble understanding. I not only wasn't reluctant, but had specficied my opinions before, several times in fact, twice in response to your latest comments. I also qualified that nationalization was the main point and what other limits prove necessary can better be determined once that is achieved. I was very plain that I had an opinion as to what would work best, but also that it was just an opinion and I wasn't claiming that had to be the only solution by any means.

  • Jack Burton profile image

    Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

    Your math skills are on display as being quite as bad as your logical and reasoning ability.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Wow, yeah thanks for catching that. Half tempted to delete that mess but no, would be too much like lying for my taste. Yeah I messed the math up there and should have noticed it just from a quick glance. Not sure why I didn't. Two decimals off puts it closer to 0.01%, though my point that the percentage of our total population that died is no argument against a need to address the problem still stands. The death total from automobiles each year is roughly the same and they are far more regulated than guns, and are getting safer and safer each year resulting in fewer deaths.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "You are off a little in your desperate attempt to claim there isn't even a problem worth fixing."

    Actually, I was quite accurate, and while I said it was not a crisis, I never said it wasn't important.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    As gun laws are relaxed after Heller /McDonald, and we have more law abiding citizens carrying concealed, gun murders and other violent crimes are decreasing, so it appears that your 'solution' is exactly the wrong thing to do. The armed citizen is the best defense against crime, because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    If this is the case where are the reports of armed citizens stopping any crimes at all? Other than home invasions that is, I found a few reports of homeowners shooting people, and a lot of those I question how necessary it was to shoot an unarmed person even if they were in your home. I was unable to find any others stopped by armed citizens. Not one mention of it actually happening anywhere. As for the decrease, that's the exact opposite of what is happening. The latest complete CDC stats on mortality from guns is from 2010 and was 31,672, in 2009 there were 31,236, and in 2008 it was only 28,983. There are more deaths by guns each year, not less.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "If this is the case where are the reports of armed citizens stopping any crimes at all?"

    Here you go:

    http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "The latest complete CDC stats on mortality from guns is from 2010 and was 31,672, in 2009 there were 31,236, and in 2008 it was only 28,983. There are more deaths by guns each year, not less."

    Over half are suicides. I said "gun murders and other violent crimes are decreasing", and they are.

    Of course, most murders are inner city blacks killing each other and inner city Hispanics killing each other. In those cities, harsh gun laws leave honest citizens unarmed and helpless.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    Suicides and accidents are still a part of the issue. Especially with suicides as guns make it so easy, immediate, and hard to fail. Many that attempt other methods either only try once and fail or at least take several attempts before they succeed which at least leaves a chance for them to be helped, not so with a gun.

    As for the racial bias in murders, the numbers are higher for african americans both as victims (50.4%), and as offenders (53.1%), while whites accounted for 47% of victims, and 44.6% of offenders. There was no breakdowns of how many of these were with firearms though they did mention that firearms accounted for 67.5% of all murders. There was also no breakdown as to how many were mixed race events, or occurred in inner city areas. Any assertions on those statistics are nothing more than guesses as the agencies with actual access to the data don't report it in these ways. source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    (sigh)

    Now we are going in circles.

    Suffice to say that we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, and I see nothing in any of your arguments that justifies any of the draconian measures you support.

    Again, if you don't like the Second Amendment, then repeal it rather that try to find a way around it.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    The only thing I've actually proposed is nationalizing the laws. I did state after that what my opinion was as to what would most effectively curb the violence without undue restrictions to the individual right to bear arms. You seem to disagree and even I hesitate to mention specifics as I'm very willing to change those opinions when we finally have a working system of laws so can see any real effects. The current setup with conflicting laws all over the place can't work for either side, and effectively nullifies all attempts at control that aren't backed up by closed borders and inspections.

    As for the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, every right has limits. We have a right to free speech, but will still be arrested (and rightly so) for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. There aren't any rights without some limitations on them, usually limits that prevent one person's rights from infringing on another. As it stands now the right to bear arms has a strangle hold on the right to life and the problem isn't getting better.

  • WillStarr profile image

    WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    "As it stands now the right to bear arms has a strangle hold on the right to life and the problem isn't getting better."

    Hyperbolic nonsense.

    Criminals have no right to bear arms, and law abiding citizens don't commit crimes. Criminals are the problem, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    My guns are no threat to anyone other than those criminals who might choose me as a victim.

    We already have 29,000 firearms laws on the books, and many of them are national laws. The only ones that have had a positive effect on crime are those that empower law abiding citizens, like Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine.

  • Jack Burton profile image

    Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

    I see that I neglected to answer Louis from several months ago. The average reader can pretty well answer Louis the same as I can, but let's give it a shot.

    Louis sez: Your entire first so called truth boiled down to nothing more than a personal insult saying that I won't be around if you are in danger, I am non-functional, and I offer nothing of protection.

    Jack replies: What is the "insult" there. Will you be around when someone is attacked? No. Will you offer them any protection? No. I was merely pointing out the obvious.

    Louis sez: Nowhere in what I wrote did I recommend any amount of gun control specifically so where do even get a basis for suggesting I want everyone to be without a weapon of any sort?

    Jack replies: Where you do even get a basis for suggesting that I suggested that you want everyone to be without a weapon of any sort? Either quote me or apologize.

    Louis sez: What I actually did was present several of the most prevalent arguments that pro-gun people are using in their favor, and showed how they barely make any sense if you actually think it through.

    Jack replies: No, what you actually showed was that you were incapable of "thinking through" those arguments. You just tried waving your hands and saying "they are wrong."

    Louis sez: You have in none of your comments defended even a single one of the things the hub was actually about, only brought up new points that while not as commonly thrown about are equally misrepresenting reality.

    Jack replies: I don't feel obligated to defend my beliefs against a flat eather, or a "OJ was innocent" person either. And are you claiming that I "misrepresented reality" when I pointed out that you will not be there to defend a family who needs help?

    Louis sez: My comment that you in no way differentiated gun ownership from rape, murder, or child molestation was intentionally as emotionally charged a statement as yours was that passing any laws about guns equates to treating the vast majority of gun owners as criminals.

    Jack replies: When you don't differentiate between law abiding citizens and criminals, and treat law abiding citizens as if they were criminals, then yes, you equate the two.

    Louis sez: The exact same argument fits just as well to any law on the books, and yet we accept all of those laws as necessary.

    Jack replies: No, we don't. And your statement shows that you know as little of the laws and why they exist as you do guns, and gun owners.

    Louis sez: Your ridiculous added examples this time around don't help make your point in the slightest. You aren't demonstrating how regulating something that most people will not misuse but some will hurts anyone.

    Jack replies: Then what am I "demonstrating" if not that.

    Louis sez: You only provide examples of mutilation and equate that to not being able to own whatever gun you want.

    Jack replies: How did the subject suddenly get changed to types of guns that people can own? A little deflection here, eh.

    Again you take my explanation of why these specific statements are wrong, and all on your own add that I must want nobody to have guns, something that I haven't even hinted at in the article, or any of the comments. This is not an all or nothing issue, and defending it only as such severely limits you and makes your arguments invalid pretty much all the time. Most people on both sides agree there should be some regulation, we just disagree on how much and what kinds. Few actually want an all or nothing solution, and I'm certainly not one of them.

  • Jack Burton profile image

    Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

    Louis sez: though my point that the percentage of our total population that died is no argument against a need to address the problem still stands. The death total from automobiles each year is roughly the same and they are far more regulated than guns, and are getting safer and safer each year resulting in fewer deaths.

    Jack replies: Then you have no idea of the concept of Cost–benefit analysis. You wants to make it all "cost" but you won't acknowledge that there are numbers on both sides of the issue. your emotional response to the issue is the only "cost" that enters the equation.

    Louis sez: Especially with suicides as guns make it so easy, immediate, and hard to fail. Many that attempt other methods either only try once and fail or at least take several attempts before they succeed which at least leaves a chance for them to be helped, not so with a gun.

    Jack replies: Exactly what business of yours is it that interferes with how someone wants to live, or end, their life?

    Louis sez: I was unable to find any others stopped by armed citizens. Not one mention of it actually happening anywhere.

    Jack replies; Then you haven't looked very hard for it. Will gave you one, here is another website that takes the stories directly ffrom the media.

    http://www.rationalityrebooted.com/

    Louis sez: As for the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, every right has limits.

    Jack replies: Get back to us when you study and learn about prior restraint.

    Louis sez: We have a right to free speech, but will still be arrested (and rightly so) for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

    Jack replies: The noted attorney and legal professor Alan Dershowitz calls this "little more than a caricature of logical argumentation"

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/...

    It's about the extent of the ability of Louis to present a case.

    Louis sez: There aren't any rights without some limitations on them, usually limits that prevent one person's rights from infringing on another. As it stands now the right to bear arms has a strangle hold on the right to life and the problem isn't getting better.

    Jack replies: Louis cannot in any way explain how me owning guns strangles any one of his rights. He cannot tell or reason why any law abiding person owning a gun, 20 guns, or big ugly guns "infringes" on his rights.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    First as I covered in the actual Hub, the problem is not some special class of person that thinks differently from everyone else and is inherently a criminal. Criminals are rarely born, they are normal law abiding citizens until some circumstance pushes them over the line and they feel the need or desire to commit a crime. According to the FBI in 2010 (latest year with complete stats) 48.1% of murders were committed during arguments, felony circumstances only accounted for 23.1%. Of the total 53% of them were committed between people that knew each other well (friends, boyfriends, neighbors) while 24.8% were killed by family members. The actual stats paint a far different picture where the law abiding citizen is actually the source of most crimes. Of course once they do these things then in your mind some switch must the thrown in their heads suddenly making them "criminal" who no longer reacts like a normal human. This is far from the case, criminals are normal people like you and me that have been pushed by circumstance, desire, or in some cases mental illness to go beyond the bounds of what our laws allow. That doesn't make them not people, and until they crossed this line they were no different from any of us.

    As for your guns not hurting anyone, this I addressed directly in the hub itself and will leave it at that. There are several ways that you owning guns does have the potential to harm others, depending on how you use them of course.

    You are far off base on your assertions that there are already many national laws about firearms. Less than 1% of the laws on the books are federal in scope currently, and my point is and always has been that while there are local laws that differ from the national then those local laws are pointless as they can neither enable gun owners that ever pass a city border, nor can they control guns in the slightest without closed borders and inspections to enforce them for the areas in which they are in effect.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    The insult while direct in the portion where you asked readers if they would prefer a "non functional Louis" or a gun, was more in insulting the intelligence of anyone reading your desperate attempt to ignore all the arguments and instead make the discussion about what provides better protection, being armed or a single human. The discussion was never about that, though I can see why you would need it to be since that would make defending your viewpoints so much easier.

    “Jack replies: And here is the ultimate in “common sense” to people such as Louis. Does my owning a gun hurt anyone? No. Not a single person. Yet, Louis wants to compare me and those 99.999 percent of gun owners to those who actually DO hurt people. He feels the act of merely owning a gun should not be differentiated from rape, murder or even child molestation.

    His words… right there in black and pixel.”

    And here is you deliberately misinterpreting my words and not even bothering to hint, but outright sayingI think owning a gun is the same as rape, murder, or even child molestation.

    My actual comment was this:

    “Like the inherent flaw in your own argument that since there are so many gun owners that don't commit any crimes we can't pass any laws about it, because that is treating them as criminals as well. You in no way differentiate gun ownership from rape, murder, or even child molestation . Replace your reference to gun owners with either of those 3 and you will see the same overwhelming ratios. In general most people aren't evil, but yes we do still need laws to protect us from those that are. “

    Now to anyone actually taking the time to read it this is very clear that I was pointing out that rape, murder, and child molestation were also crimes committed by a very few individuals, but that in an attempt to fight them we limit the rights of law abiding citizens in ways deemed necessary to catch and punish those that would commit these crimes, you either choose to ignore that, or just skimmed past it without reading and then attempted to paint my comments in a different light entirely.

    “Jack replies: When you don't differentiate between law abiding citizens and criminals, and treat law abiding citizens as if they were criminals, then yes, you equate the two. “

    Nowhere have I suggested anything that would treat law abiding citizens as criminals. I have suggested that stricter and more effective laws about guns would make us all safer. By very definition if laws were passed that you are not complying with then you no longer are a law abiding citizen so this argument is pointless and misleading in the extreme.

    “Louis sez: The exact same argument fits just as well to any law on the books, and yet we accept all of those laws as necessary.

    Jack replies: No, we don't. And your statement shows that you know as little of the laws and why they exist as you do guns, and gun owners.”

    Lets take such a simple thing as a speed limit, a law that exists in some form on every highway in America. These limit the rights of every driver on the road regardless of their likelyhood to cause an accident in order to prevent as many accidents as possible. As I stated before, and several times later, this same thing applies to all laws. They all limit what we can do even as law abiding citizens with no desire to harm others, to prevent those that would cause harm from being able to, or at least allow them to be prosecuted and punished after the fact.

  • Louis Singley profile image
    Author

    Louis Singley 3 years ago from Valdosta, Georgia

    “Louis sez: though my point that the percentage of our total population that died is no argument against a need to address the problem still stands. The death total from automobiles each year is roughly the same and they are far more regulated than guns, and are getting safer and safer each year resulting in fewer deaths.

    Jack replies: Then you have no idea of the concept of Cost–benefit analysis. You wants to make it all "cost" but you won't acknowledge that there are numbers on both sides of the issue. your emotional response to the issue is the only "cost" that enters the equation.”

    Bringing cost vs benefit into the discussion does your side no favors here. Guns damage property and take lives, cars transport people and goods, and only if misused or malfunctioning cause damage or take lives. A gun can't take your kids to soccer, or deliver food to grocery stores, or resupply hospitals, it has one purpose and that's to destroy something. Guns are almost entirely cost, with only the dubious and unquantifiable benefit of prevented crime. Cars and other automobiles have hundreds of uses that are purely beneficial, and yet they are regulated far more strictly than guns which do not.

    “Louis sez: Especially with suicides as guns make it so easy, immediate, and hard to fail. Many that attempt other methods either only try once and fail or at least take several attempts before they succeed which at least leaves a chance for them to be helped, not so with a gun.

    Jack replies: Exactly what business of yours is it that interferes with how someone wants to live, or end, their life?”

    Since the concept of compassion seems to be beyond you, I will attempt to explain. It is my business because I actually care about the well being of people other than myself. I hold hope that people considering suicide will be able to get help and avoid actually losing their lives. Making it harder to do on a whim would help more people not take that out and actually get help for their problems. I for one would see that as a good thing.

    “Louis sez: I was unable to find any others stopped by armed citizens. Not one mention of it actually happening anywhere.

    Jack replies; Then you haven't looked very hard for it. Will gave you one, here is another website that takes the stories directly ffrom the media.

    http://www.rationalityrebooted.com/

    Will gave a link to a site ran directly by the NRA, and you provide one that doesn't tell us anything about the person running it at all. I will give you that the owner of your link does a good job of providing sources and I have no doubt the stories he presents are real, though he does seem to go to pains to make sure every gun user sounds like a hero no matter how shady the circumstances of their use of a firearm actually were. Ignoring that though there is the fact that in a country that has over 16,000 homicides yearly, and thousands more violent crimes that don't actually end in murder this site can account for only 620 crimes stopped by armed intervention, and only 159 lives saved, and even these numbers are questionable as they don't discuss at all how the totals are obtained. They even include shootings carried out by trained professionals which further makes their numbers pointless. Even ignoring these shortcomings in accuracy their inflated claims of 620 crimes stopped and 159 lives saved in no way makes up for over 31,000 deaths by firearms each year.

    “Louis sez: As for the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, every right has limits.

    Jack replies: Get back to us when you study and learn about prior restraint.

    Louis sez: We have a right to free speech, but will still be arrested (and rightly so) for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

    Jack replies: The noted attorney and legal professor Alan Dershowitz calls this "little more than a caricature of logical argumentation"

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/

    It's about the extent of the ability of Louis to present a case.”

    Again you demonstrate your inability to do more than skim text in search of a phrase to expliot in hopes that anyone seeing your comments will share your lack of reading comprehension and not check the source. The link you provide doesn't in any way claim that the statement that one is not protected in their right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater is false, he points out that the analogy between the cases where it is so commonly used as an argument have little similarity to this example and so using it as proof is a logical flaw. I however was directly using it as an example of how other rights have acknowledged and uncontroversial limits applied to them, so applying limits to gun ownership is not unreasonable. This would be a correct usage of the argument, unlike the examples your link provides. It was a good read however so thanks for that.

    “Louis sez: There aren't any rights without some limitations on them, usually limits that prevent one person's rights from infringing on another. As it stands now the right to bear arms has a strangle hold on the right to life and the problem isn't getting better.

    Jack replies: Louis cannot in any way explain how me owning guns strangles any one of his rights. He cannot tell or reason why any law abiding person owning a gun, 20 guns, or big ugly guns "infringes" on his rights.”

    I covered in great detail how allowing anyone to own and use guns does increase the risk of harm to other people in the hub itself. There is no logical way to claim otherwise, the question that myself and others are trying to answer is how much of that risk is acceptable in order to maintain individual rights both to own and use guns, and to be free from the threat of harm from others.

Click to Rate This Article