Yay, GUNS!

[John Cuthber]

 

A lot of words to explain the definition of a false dichotomy. As I said before, I know what a false dichotomy is, and this isn't one.

 

Since I don't associate with criminals and have self control, the chances of any of my firearms being used in a homicide are essentially zero. So why should my liberty be restricted?

A lot of words, but apparently not enough, because you clearly don't understand.

This

"So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead."

is still a false dichotomy because you don't have to do one "instead" of the other, you can do one in addition to the other.

 

And, re. "Since I don't associate with criminals and have self control, the chances of any of my firearms being used in a homicide are essentially zero. So why should my liberty be restricted?"

that's what they all would have said, shortly before either, someone broke in and killed them with their own gun, or they picked up a gun in a flash-in-the-pan argument and shot them, or the kids got hold of the gun.

[dimreepr]

Gun control laws are going after the wrong people.

 

 

Gun control laws are the same as drink driving laws. You may think you’re OK after a small sherry, until you kill someone because you had a small sherry.

[waitforufo]

This

"So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead."

is still a false dichotomy because you don't have to do one "instead" of the other, you can do one in addition to the other.

But to what end or purpose?

 

Why are the people allowed to own guns?

Well let's check my Washington State Constitution.

 

 

Article I Section 24 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

How does the federal supreme court define the my right to own firearms? Let's check Heller.

 

 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

 

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

 

So the reason is self defense.

 

Self defense against who? I'm sure homicidal criminals must be right at the top of that list.

 

So restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms does not serve to reduce homicides. It would only embolden criminals.

 

Your goal to restrict firearms would simply reduce the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. Criminals don't need firearms to kill. They just need to be bigger and stronger or in larger numbers. Since criminals are committing the vast majority of homicides, restricting the firearms rights of the law abiding would only limit the law abiding from defending their lives. Therefore my argument is not a false dichotomy if your goal is reduce homicides. That is particularly true if your goal is to reduce homicides of the law abiding. As I pointed out previously, the vast majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal records.

Edited December 13, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

But to what end or purpose?

 

Why are the people allowed to own guns?

Well let's check my Washington State Constitution.

 

 

How does the federal supreme court define the my right to own firearms? Let's check Heller.

 

 

So the reason is self defense.

 

Self defense against who? I'm sure homicidal criminals must be right at the top of that list.

 

So restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms does not serve to reduce homicides. It would only embolden criminals.

 

Your goal to restrict firearms would simply reduce the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. Criminals don't need firearms to kill. They just need to be bigger and stronger or in larger numbers. Since criminals are committing the vast majority of homicides, restricting the firearms rights of the law abiding would only limit the law abiding from defending their lives. Therefore my argument is not a false dichotomy if your goal is reduce homicides. That is particularly true if your goal is to reduce homicides of the law abiding. As I pointed out previously, the vast majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal records.

Lots of irrelevant words there.

You can still do both, so it's still a false dichotomy.

 

Incidentally, genuine gun control would also mean that the "homicidal criminals" would also not have a gun.

 

Did you not understand that either?

 

Also, do you remember the video?

It showed that guns are either dangerously (and thus irresponsibly) easy to get hold of, or uselessly locked away when the "homicidal criminal" breaks in.

Did you forget that the "home defence" argument had already been written off as nonsensical?

 

The number of homicidal criminals killed by home-owners during a home invasion is practically nil.

Your answer address a circumstance that almost doesn't exist.

Yet the number of people killed by accidents and by family members while in the home is much bigger than that.

Your plan is to increase the bloodshed.

 

Why do you want more people dead?

[Willie71]

The u.s. Has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. You have been going after "criminals" for decades, and yet you still have the obscenely high gun death rate that you do. Something doesn't add up. Are Americans homicidal barbarians? It sure sounds like it when talking to gun advocates. Why do you believe all these people want to break into your home and kill you? It's a bizarre belief, no? I'm in my mid 40's, have worked with criminals for a couple decades and have never felt the need to "protect myself."

[waitforufo]

Lots of irrelevant words there.

You can still do both, so it's still a false dichotomy.

Yeah, and you can stand on one foot and whistle yankee doodle dandy at the same time too but it won't reduce the homicide rate.

Incidentally, genuine gun control would also mean that the "homicidal criminals" would also not have a gun.

 

Did you not understand that either?

So homicidal criminals have no issue will killing people, but would never break gun control laws in your mind? If true, you have an interesting way of thinking.

Homicidal criminals don't need guns to kill, by the way. They just need to be bigger, or stronger, or have their homicidal criminal buddies with them. Perhaps all they need is a knife or a baseball bat.

 

Do you not understand that either?

 

Also, do you remember the video?

It showed that guns are either dangerously (and thus irresponsibly) easy to get hold of, or uselessly locked away when the "homicidal criminal" breaks in.

Did you forget that the "home defence" argument had already been written off as nonsensical?

Americans don't believe it is nonsensical. Firearms just keep getting easier to get.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-sandy-hook-kid-massacre-guns-easier-than-ever-to-get/

 

Many states also let you carry them around.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

 

The number of homicidal criminals killed by home-owners during a home invasion is practically nil.

Your answer address a circumstance that almost doesn't exist.

Yeah, we have guns so they stay away.

 

Yet the number of people killed by accidents and by family members while in the home is much bigger than that.

Your plan is to increase the bloodshed.

Fatal accidents happen with or without guns.

 

Why do you want more people dead?

I don't, but I don't have a problem with dead criminals either.

[John Cuthber]

Yeah, and you can stand on one foot and whistle yankee doodle dandy at the same time too but it won't reduce the homicide rate.

So homicidal criminals have no issue will killing people, but would never break gun control laws in your mind? If true, you have an interesting way of thinking.

Homicidal criminals don't need guns to kill, by the way. They just need to be bigger, or stronger, or have their homicidal criminal buddies with them. Perhaps all they need is a knife or a baseball bat.

 

Do you not understand that either?

 

Americans don't believe it is nonsensical. Firearms just keep getting easier to get.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-sandy-hook-kid-massacre-guns-easier-than-ever-to-get/

 

Many states also let you carry them around.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

 

Yeah, we have guns so they stay away.

 

Fatal accidents happen with or without guns.

 

I don't, but I don't have a problem with dead criminals either.

Mainly illogical or wrong.

You have just dome a good job of supporting gun control, by showing the weakness of the "arguments" against it.

[Arete]

Americans don't believe it is nonsensical.

 

68% Of American households do not have a gun. Of those that do have a gun, 30% keep them in locked storage. This leaves 22.7%of Americans who could conceivably use a gun for self defense. Additionally, only 0.8% of violent crime victims use a gun in self defense.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Arete

[waitforufo]

 

68% Of American households do not have a gun. Of those that do have a gun, 30% keep them in locked storage. This leaves 22.7%of Americans who could conceivably use a gun for self defense. Additionally, only 0.8% of violent crime victims do not use a gun in self defense.

I'm sure you meant only 0.8% of violent crime victims use a gun in self defense.

 

These studies are dependent on people reporting their use of a gun in self defense. What fool reports that? If you brandish a gun and scare off your attacker, what is there to report. You're unharmed. Your attacker, on the long shot that he or she is found, can simply say "I was minding my own business, and that person pulled a gun on me." Why put yourself through the hassle. Your gun did the job, so case closed.

 

So 22.4% of households are ready to shoot. If you are a criminal, those odds of getting shot are better than playing Russian roulette. Too bad those 22.4% have to do the heavy lifting for the 77.6%.

 

By the way, I don't think most people who own guns talk to pollsters much, and when they do I doubt they tell the truth.

Edited December 15, 2015 by waitforufo

[moth]

Too bad those 22.4% have to do the heavy lifting for the 77.6%.

 

 

 

Guns are magic.

I have magic dynamite for sale that protects you from earthquakes.If the earth starts shaking, light the dynamite and you are safe from everything.

[John Cuthber]

1 Yeah, and you can stand on one foot and whistle yankee doodle dandy at the same time too but it won't reduce the homicide rate.

2 So homicidal criminals have no issue will killing people, but would never break gun control laws in your mind? If true, you have an interesting way of thinking.

Homicidal criminals don't need guns to kill, by the way. They just need to be bigger, or stronger, or have their homicidal criminal buddies with them. Perhaps all they need is a knife or a baseball bat.

 

Do you not understand that either?

 

3 Americans don't believe it is nonsensical. Firearms just keep getting easier to get.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-sandy-hook-kid-massacre-guns-easier-than-ever-to-get/

 

4 Many states also let you carry them around.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

 

5 Yeah, we have guns so they stay away.

 

6 Fatal accidents happen with or without guns.

 

7 I don't, but I don't have a problem with dead criminals either.

OK, lets have a better look at those now I have a bit more time. (I have numbered them to make it easier.)

1 What you have said there makes no sense. The point remains that you can enact law and you can go after criminals. So your implication that you could only do one or the other was a false dichotomy.

 

2 That's a strawman. I didn't say laws stopped people getting guns; I said that gun control stopped people getting guns. Please learn to read stuff properly.

 

3 I know that many or most Americans don't realise it's nonsense. A good fraction of Americans also don't believe in evolution.

That' doesn't stop evolution being true, and it doesn't stop the idea of "home defence" being nonsense.

citing "most Americans" is a logical fallacy- the "bandwagon effect".

 

4 Ditto; just because it's common, doesn't mean it's sensible.

 

5 Do you know the joke about the man who walks around London with a bucket of sand? He sprinkles a bit of it on the ground as he goes.

From time to time, people ask what he's doing and he tells them that he spreads it to keep the elephants away.

They say "there are no elephants in London", and he says "well, that just shows how well it works."

You don't seem to realise that what you have put forward as an argument in favour of gun ownership is practically identical to the punchline of an old joke.

Does that trouble you?

 

6 fatal shootings don't. removing those from the stats would reduce the overall death toll.

 

7 if only criminals got shot, I'd not care too much.

but how many of the children killed in the US this year were criminals?

Again, it's an issue of trying to keep the overall death toll down.

 

So, 7 times out of 7 you made no sense.

Like I said, you just did a fine job of supporting the anti-gun lobby.

[waitforufo]

OK, lets have a better look at those now I have a bit more time. (I have numbered them to make it easier.)

1 What you have said there makes no sense. The point remains that you can enact law and you can go after criminals. So your implication that you could only do one or the other was a false dichotomy.

 

2 That's a strawman. I didn't say laws stopped people getting guns; I said that gun control stopped people getting guns. Please learn to read stuff properly.

 

3 I know that many or most Americans don't realise it's nonsense. A good fraction of Americans also don't believe in evolution.

That' doesn't stop evolution being true, and it doesn't stop the idea of "home defence" being nonsense.

citing "most Americans" is a logical fallacy- the "bandwagon effect".

 

4 Ditto; just because it's common, doesn't mean it's sensible.

 

5 Do you know the joke about the man who walks around London with a bucket of sand? He sprinkles a bit of it on the ground as he goes.

From time to time, people ask what he's doing and he tells them that he spreads it to keep the elephants away.

They say "there are no elephants in London", and he says "well, that just shows how well it works."

You don't seem to realise that what you have put forward as an argument in favour of gun ownership is practically identical to the punchline of an old joke.

Does that trouble you?

 

6 fatal shootings don't. removing those from the stats would reduce the overall death toll.

 

7 if only criminals got shot, I'd not care too much.

but how many of the children killed in the US this year were criminals?

Again, it's an issue of trying to keep the overall death toll down.

 

So, 7 times out of 7 you made no sense.

Like I said, you just did a fine job of supporting the anti-gun lobby.

1) No my implication was that the other (gun control laws) would have the same impact on the homicide rate as standing on one foot and whistling yankee doodle dandy. You can do lots of things at the same time but we are talking about reducing the homicide rate. Gun control won't do that, hence not a false dichotomy.

 

2) I think you are splitting hairs by differentiating between gun control and gun control laws. What is the point in having laws that have no effect? Why pass laws only to punish the law abiding? Why make criminals out of people enjoying there natural rights?

 

3) No its called democracy. Americans love their liberty and are willing to take risks to enjoy them.

 

4) People want to be able to defend them selves not just in their homes but in their daily lives. The American constitution recognizes both the right to keep and bear arms.

 

5) But they do have more home invasion and violent crime in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/

https://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/

6) So if you are going to exclude accidents, then you have to look at who is getting shot and why. Criminals getting shot, no problem. Law abiding people getting shot, more armed people needed. Also, criminals don't need guns to murder. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Personally I would prefer to have a gun in a knife fight. How about you?

7) Children getting shot is tragic. So are children being poisoned. So are children who die in falls. So are children drowning. So are children burned to death in fires. So are children who die in traffic accidents. So are children that get electrocuted. Life is full of risks.

The gun lobby is winning. I'm not worried.

Edited December 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[Endy0816]

Has been mentioned a few times now, that the statistics in other western nations back up a reduction in gun prevalence as vastly reducing gun homicides.

 

Even the "people will be killed by other means" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the overall homicide rate drops as well.

 

 

 

7) Children getting shot is tragic. So are children being poisoned. So are children who die in falls. So are children drowning. So are children burned to death in fires. So are children who die in traffic accidents. So are children that get electrocuted. Life is full of risks.

 

You can child proof electrical sockets, pools, so why not do something about the guns?

 

You can't just wave your hands and say nothing can be done, when something clearly can. Biometric safes, gun locks. Easy as pie. Lets add some incentive and make them a tax right-off. What is the problem?

 

 

Aside:

 

Has been a slow cultural shift going on, though not real obvious with all the big news hype. Gun manufacturers in financial trouble, normal gun purchases down and parents asking each other about whether the other owns a gun(and if so is it secured). That quiet sea of change, is what I think will eventually see us "catch up" with the rest of the first world(and to be fair, some of the second and third). Got our bastardized quasi-gov healthcare program, now just need to lick the gun issue.

[John Cuthber]

 

1) No my implication was that the other (gun control laws) would have the same impact on the homicide rate as standing on one foot and whistling yankee doodle dandy. You can do lots of things at the same time but we are talking about reducing the homicide rate. Gun control won't do that, hence not a false dichotomy.

 

2) I think you are splitting hairs by differentiating between gun control and gun control laws. What is the point in having laws that have no effect? Why pass laws only to punish the law abiding? Why make criminals out of people enjoying there natural rights?

 

3) No its called democracy. Americans love their liberty and are willing to take risks to enjoy them.

 

4) People want to be able to defend them selves not just in their homes but in their daily lives. The American constitution recognizes both the right to keep and bear arms.

 

5) But they do have more home invasion and violent crime in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/

https://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/

6) So if you are going to exclude accidents, then you have to look at who is getting shot and why. Criminals getting shot, no problem. Law abiding people getting shot, more armed people needed. Also, criminals don't need guns to murder. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Personally I would prefer to have a gun in a knife fight. How about you?

7) Children getting shot is tragic. So are children being poisoned. So are children who die in falls. So are children drowning. So are children burned to death in fires. So are children who die in traffic accidents. So are children that get electrocuted. Life is full of risks.

The gun lobby is winning. I'm not worried.

 

No more logical than it was last time.

For example, the fact remains that you can do both so it's still a false dichotomy, even if one of the options is pointless.

 

2 Nobody is suggesting that.

 

 

3 the evidence shows that they are taking risks because they have been misinformed, rather than by choosing to.

and so on.

[waitforufo]

Gun manufacturers in financial trouble, normal gun purchases down and parents asking each other about whether the other owns a gun(and if so is it secured)

Meanwhile in the real world.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/investing/gun-stocks-surge-2015/

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031314/americas-gun-love-boosts-firearm-stocks-sales-surge-rgr-swhc-oln-atk-dks.aspx

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/04/16/sturm-ruger-co-rgr-firearms/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/15/3-gun-stocks-to-watch.aspx

[Willie71]

Meanwhile in the real world.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/investing/gun-stocks-surge-2015/

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031314/americas-gun-love-boosts-firearm-stocks-sales-surge-rgr-swhc-oln-atk-dks.aspx

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/04/16/sturm-ruger-co-rgr-firearms/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/15/3-gun-stocks-to-watch.aspx

Fear is a powerful motivator. This us why they won't block gun sales to people on terrorist watch lists. Every shooting, or terror event gets people out buying guns to "protect themselves."

 

The whole Kenyan Muslim gun grabber meme didn't hurt either.

[waitforufo]

Fear is a powerful motivator. This us why they won't block gun sales to people on terrorist watch lists. Every shooting, or terror event gets people out buying guns to "protect themselves."

 

The whole Kenyan Muslim gun grabber meme didn't hurt either.

To make you feel safe how many freedoms must be lost? How many people must be denied due process?

[iNow]

A better metric would be NEW gun buyers [EDIT] as a percentage of existing total non-gun owners[/EDIT], not total guns sold. A handful of people stockpiling is not equivalent to lots of public support.

 

In essence, and for countless other reasons not mentioned here, sales volume or short-term fear-based surges in purchasing is not a valid proxy of overall sentiment or support of smart controls and regulations.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by iNow

[Endy0816]

Colt is just now exiting from(yet another) bankruptcy. If things are so good what is going on?

 

Yeah.. last time Smith and Wesson's stock was up like this it dropped from the 20's to the 5's within a few months. Their director just sold 20,000 shares, so feel free.

[Willie71]

To make you feel safe how many freedoms must be lost? How many people must be denied due process?

 

Ahh, the "freedom" defence. It's absurd.

 

You can't use lead paint or gas. You have speed limits. You have labour and marriage laws. Grow up! What a pathetic, childish response.

 

Due process? Then follow the process, make a decision, and either give them a gun or don't. Don't give them a gun while being investigated.

 

How does one reconcile banning Muslims, without due process, and giving suspicious people guns? Maybe people should prove their capable of being responsible with a gun (well regulated.)

[waitforufo]

A better metric would be NEW gun buyers [EDIT] as a percentage of existing total non-gun owners[/EDIT], not total guns sold. A handful of people stockpiling is not equivalent to lots of public support.

 

In essence, and for countless other reasons not mentioned here, sales volume or short-term fear-based surges in purchasing is not a valid proxy of overall sentiment or support of smart controls and regulations.

 

And yet more and more states allow their citizens to carry firearms.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/

 

This doesn't happen without votes in state houses and signatures of governors. How are those politicians getting reelected?

 

Shooting sports are gaining in popularity as well.

 

http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2014/11/17/participation-target-shooting-soaring-across-united-states/

 

Americans love there firearms. Get over it.

Ahh, the "freedom" defence. It's absurd.

 

You can't use lead paint or gas. You have speed limits. You have labour and marriage laws. Grow up! What a pathetic, childish response.

 

Due process? Then follow the process, make a decision, and either give them a gun or don't. Don't give them a gun while being investigated.

 

How does one reconcile banning Muslims, without due process, and giving suspicious people guns? Maybe people should prove their capable of being responsible with a gun (well regulated.)

Gee, I remember when liberals thought due process was important. Last time I checked the US is supposed to be a country of innocent until proven guilty. The rule is take them to court or don't. Until proven guilty they have all their rights.

 

Find a place where I have suggested banning Muslims. If they are citizens of this country they can buy all the guns they want. I encourage them to do so.

[Willie71]

Due process is important. The patriot act is absurd, and should be struck down.

 

Not letting people fly is ok, as long as they have the freedom to buy a gun?

 

While you might not think Muslims should be banned, the politicians supporting the unrestricted purchase of guns believe Muslims should be banned. And people support them by voting for them.

[iNow]

And yet more and more states allow their citizens to carry firearms. <...> This doesn't happen without votes in state houses and signatures of governors. How are those politicians getting reelected?

Apologies that you've forgotten, but I've addressed this multiple times, including as recently as September:

 

While 80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations, it's not an intensity issue for most. There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more like the economy and jobs and terrorism and being able to feed their families or keep a roof over their head. While it's a major issue in the U.S. relative to other nations, and while millions of people would like to see these senseless killings mitigated and gun control improved, it just doesn't affect the lives of most of the people on a daily basis. It doesn't animate them to organize and strategize or head to the polls in buses en masse.

 

For another certain segment of our population, however, this issue is the ONLY thing they care about. It DOES animate and motivate them to form large coalitions, intractable voting blocs, and through this stronghold they manage to use fear and intimidation to prevent any meaningful progress and they stand as obstacles to the implementation of any sensible measures whatsoever.

Americans love there firearms. Get over it.

And again, apologies that you seem willfully incapable of grasping such a simple premise, but I need to remind you that there are methods available to improve the current situation and we're not limited solely to the options of "do nothing or ban all guns."

 

There's a whole spectrum of possibility in between, but that would involve consideration of nuance and moving away from simplistic knee-jerk binary responses and I know that's a problem for you.

[waitforufo]

Due process is important. The patriot act is absurd, and should be struck down.

Agreed.

Not letting people fly is ok, as long as they have the freedom to buy a gun?

No, we should let them fly as well. What gives the government the right to inhibit the free travel of the people or any individual without due process?

While you might not think Muslims should be banned, the politicians supporting the unrestricted purchase of guns believe Muslims should be banned. And people support them by voting for them.

Well I appreciate their defense of my firearms rights and the rights of the people, but they are wrong about banning Muslims.

For another certain segment of our population, however, this issue is the ONLY thing they care about. It DOES animate and motivate them to form large coalitions, intractable voting blocs, and through this stronghold they manage to use fear and intimidation to prevent any meaningful progress and they stand as obstacles to the implementation of any sensible measures whatsoever.

Isn't democracy great!

[iNow]

Isn't democracy great!

"Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary."

 

Since my point was that only the most rabid and extreme on this topic seem to get involved in voting and that's why despite overwhelming public support the status quo continues, your introduction of the concept of democracy into this exchange seems misplaced.