Guns and Violence, A Logical Perspective

[Inferno]

I agree with Visaki. The situation is similar in Austria. Merely unholstering your gun as a policeman requires an incredible amount of paperwork later on.

I believe, though I can not prove it, that police gun use is proportionate to what society does with guns, with causal connections going both ways. Reduce one and you're likely to reduce the other.

Now, as for tuxbox's points:

1) How do you get the guns out of the hands of gang bangers? Gun laws mean jack shit to them!

Doesn't matter. Ban ammunition. I remember that Chris Rock sketch: If a bullet is so crazily expensive that nobody can buy them, or alternatively if bullets are banned from being sold, then there may be some residual violence at first, but soon the ammo will run out. Once bullets run out, you can start taking back the guns.

2) There are over 270 million guns in America. That's more than 10 times the Australian population!

Point being?

3) How do you get the people to give up their guns? Through a buy back program? Or do you send in the Feds into every home in America and forcibly take them? If it is the latter, then we have a civil war on our hands. It will be very ugly to say the least.

There are ways, though I might not know them all. I'm curious: How did the Australians do it? They bought them back, they gave them incentives to relinquish their weapons. I'm sure most Americans wouldn't mind a bit of extra $$$.

 

[Popeyewinter]

Okay,

my OP was about a logical arguments and ways to limit gun crimes, while still not being unreasonable and just taking away all guns. Then in the follow up I answered some specific questions.

However, I am disgusted at the unreason I see in some of the replies, especially the ones saying to ban all guns or bullets

That is NOT reasonable, it is an over reaction, at least in many places. The crimes committed with legal guns in Canada are in single digits annually and that includes those silly paper crimes.

 

[Prolescum]

Okay,

my OP was about a logical arguments

Ah, that explains why my posts go effectively unanswered.

However, I am disgusted at the unreason I see in some of the replies, especially the ones saying to ban all guns or bullets

That is NOT reasonable, it is an over reaction, at least in many places.

...and this response isn't? Anyone can express a view here, there's really no point in taking umbrage because someone disagrees with your perspective. To win an argument, you need to successfully counter their points, not get pissy.

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[tuxbox]

For some background on my gun oppinion; I'm Finnish and Finland is, depending on the study, on the places 3-5 on guns per capita in the World. Per capita we have a bit over half the guns that the US, which is by far the clear leader, has. Still our rate of homicides is a third of the USs and homicides using guns about a tenth. I wonder why that is.

Most of our guns are (bolt action) rifles and shotguns for hunting (self loading ones are rare and automatic weapons are banned) , pistols are rare. You need a licence to buy a gun and licences for pistols, specially anything heavier than a .22, are hard to get. Most finnish males have attended the concription based army and handled weapons (an assault rifle and a LMG for me) there and to get a licence for a hunting weapon you need to pass a test on hunting laws and gun safety. Our police have this year used their guns about 40 times. "Used" means that they have taken a gun out and either fired it or used it as a threat. Half of those are putting down some pigs that were so maltreated that they were euthanized and only handfull of cases have the officer firing his weapon as a warning shot or at a person. So the bar for even taking ones gun out of the holster is pretty high for the police here. (Sidenote; I think a big difference in police work, in the light of the recent police shootings in the US, is that our police always work on pairs and that brings a lot of options to the table when dealing with violent but not gun using aggressors.)

I really don't see why some of the suggested regulations aren't implemented in the US. Mandatory back ground checks or even mandatory gun registration isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws banning full automatic 100 round drum magazine assault rifles, 50 BMG sniper rifles or 30 round clips for hand guns aren't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws mandating that you have to report who you sold your gun to (or if you lost it or it was stolen) isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner.

I'm a bit puzzled on the American's fervor about their 2nd amendment. For an outsider like me it's quite straight foreward; The founding fathers thought that a standing army is a threat to democrasy so they wanted a citizen militia as the armed force of the US. Militia needed arms so the ownership of arms for that militia wasn't to be prohibited. Of course these days the US has not only a large standing army, but a "well regulated militia" in the national guards as well so the premise behind the 2nd amendment is obsolete. But that's just my outsiders oppinion on the matter. I'm sure people who sell guns for a living like the NRA know better.

First, I will say that I don't take issue with anything you have said about gun regulation. That being said, I do disagree with you on the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights, is to keep the Federal government from infringing on the rights of individuals and the States. The 2nd Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This Amendment was partially based on the English Bill of Rights 1689, which stated:

“no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law”

Now obviously this is up for debate, and will ultimately be decided by courts, again and again and again, as it has been done in the past. The Constitution would need to be amended by Congress to take these rights away. That will be very hard to do, since the Bill of Rights are considered to be sacrosanct.

 

[tuxbox]

I agree with Visaki. The situation is similar in Austria. Merely unholstering your gun as a policeman requires an incredible amount of paperwork later on.

I believe, though I can not prove it, that police gun use is proportionate to what society does with guns, with causal connections going both ways. Reduce one and you're likely to reduce the other.

I agree with you here.

Now, as for tuxbox's points:

1) How do you get the guns out of the hands of gang bangers? Gun laws mean jack shit to them!

Doesn't matter. Ban ammunition. I remember that Chris Rock sketch: If a bullet is so crazily expensive that nobody can buy them, or alternatively if bullets are banned from being sold, then there may be some residual violence at first, but soon the ammo will run out. Once bullets run out, you can start taking back the guns.

Banning ammunition would infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms, as it would make protecting oneself impossible. I also don't believe in the adage of "cracking a few eggs, to make an omelet".

2) There are over 270 million guns in America. That's more than 10 times the Australian population!

Point being?

It would be a lot harder to do what the Australians did. Way too many guns.

3) How do you get the people to give up their guns? Through a buy back program? Or do you send in the Feds into every home in America and forcibly take them? If it is the latter, then we have a civil war on our hands. It will be very ugly to say the least.

There are ways, though I might not know them all. I'm curious: How did the Australians do it? They bought them back, they gave them incentives to relinquish their weapons. I'm sure most Americans wouldn't mind a bit of extra $$$.

They have tried that in a few cities, like in NYC if I remember correctly. It did not last very long. Also, I believe most American gun owners are not as reasonable as the Aussies are.

 

[Inferno]

However, I am disgusted at the unreason I see in some of the replies, especially the ones saying to ban all guns or bullets

That is NOT reasonable, it is an over reaction, at least in many places. The crimes committed with legal guns in Canada are in single digits annually and that includes those silly paper crimes.

Who said that "all guns or bullets" should be banned? You can only be talking about me, but I never said that.
I'll repeat what I said:
1) Stricter gun laws (like in Austria or Finland) would help to reduce gun related crimes in the US. Stricter gun laws =/= ban all guns. My family is one with a tradition of hunting. We own a wide variety of hunting guns. What we do not own is full-auto machine guns, armour piercing ammo or explosives.

2) Reducing the availability of bullets, either by restricting the way they can be bought or by banning them completely for a while (see 3 for details) would again greatly reduce gun related crimes.

3) A direct result of 1 and 2 is that all guns not in compliance with the gun laws must be bought back. Reducing the availability of bullets, at least in the short term, can help citizens move in the direction of a buy-back.

Banning ammunition would infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms, as it would make protecting oneself impossible. I also don't believe in the adage of "cracking a few eggs, to make an omelet".

Well fuck the second amendment. It certainly had a use back in the days, but it's completely irrational today. The whole point of this excursion (buying back weapons, changing legislation, etc.) was based on the premise that the second amendment were changed or rescinded.

It would be a lot harder to do what the Australians did. Way too many guns.

The US also has way more people who could carry out the orders and a vastly larger GDP (and resulting budget), so it's mostly proportionate.

They have tried that in a few cities, like in NYC if I remember correctly. It did not last very long. Also, I believe most American gun owners are not as reasonable as the Aussies are.

There is absolutely no use in doing this in "a few cities". That's like cutting out the cancer in your left lung, but leaving the one in the right lung. Pointless. If you want to do it, do it nationwide.

Also, did you check the three videos I posted? Aussie gun owners were as unreasonable as US gun owners are today.

 

[Popeyewinter]

But inferno, why should law-abiding citizens, who have done no harm to anyone (unless justified like defence), have to sell their guns? How would taking guns from people who cause no issue, help anything?

I think Marilyn Manson got it right with his album "Holy Wood" where he basically commented that it was the culture that was the issue, he never said anything about guns themselves being a problem. Give "Holy Wood" a listen, it's a good album, one of his best I'd think. I love the symbology of Martyrdom with the use of jesus and the cross made out of a rifle and two revolvers. Remember, this was his response to being scapegoated for the whole columbine thing.

 

[tuxbox]

Well fuck the second amendment. It certainly had a use back in the days, but it's completely irrational today. The whole point of this excursion (buying back weapons, changing legislation, etc.) was based on the premise that the second amendment were changed or rescinded.

This is not an argument for the Second Amendment, but I will state why most politicians won't "fuck the second amendment". The Bill of Rights are considered natural rights, not given by the government. So it is something that can't be easily taken away. They are to protect people from government.

The US also has way more people who could carry out the orders and a vastly larger GDP (and resulting budget), so it's mostly proportionate.

I never thought of it in those terms. That makes sense.

There is absolutely no use in doing this in "a few cities". That's like cutting out the cancer in your left lung, but leaving the one in the right lung. Pointless. If you want to do it, do it nationwide.

I agree with you here.

Also, did you check the three videos I posted? Aussie gun owners were as unreasonable as US gun owners are today.

Perhaps. We will see.

 

[WarK]

Well fuck the second amendment. It certainly had a use back in the days, but it's completely irrational today. The whole point of this excursion (buying back weapons, changing legislation, etc.) was based on the premise that the second amendment were changed or rescinded.

This is not an argument for the Second Amendment, but I will state why most politicians won't "fuck the second amendment". The Bill of Rights are considered natural rights, not given by the government. So it is something that can't be easily taken away. They are to protect people from government.

It was pretty easy to revoke 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol in the US, wasn't it?

The bill of rights was created by people. Whether they were part of government or not isn't really important. They're not set in stone, they can be changed if people want them changed. Calling them natural rights doesn't change a thing. What are natural rights anyway?

 

[tuxbox]

It was pretty easy to revoke 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol in the US, wasn't it?

The 18th amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments. The first 10 are connected to the Declaration of Independence, which states that these rights are "unalienable".

The bill of rights was created by people. Whether they were part of government or not isn't really important. They're not set in stone, they can be changed if people want them changed.

True, but the minds of most Americans would have to be changed with regards to those rights being "unalienable and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Calling them natural rights doesn't change a thing. What are natural rights anyway?

It's the idea that all humans are born with certain rights that can't or shouldn't be taken away by anyone, and most importantly by a government. One of the most important roles of government is to protect those rights, build on those rights, but not infringe on them. That is the American philosophy.

 

[WarK]

It was pretty easy to revoke 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol in the US, wasn't it?

The 18th amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments. The first 10 are connected to the Declaration of Independence, which states that these rights are "unalienable".

The bill of rights was created by people. Whether they were part of government or not isn't really important. They're not set in stone, they can be changed if people want them changed.

True, but the minds of most Americans would have to be changed with regards to those rights being "unalienable and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Calling them natural rights doesn't change a thing. What are natural rights anyway?

It's the idea that all humans are born with certain rights that can't or shouldn't be taken away by anyone, and most importantly by a government. One of the most important roles of government is to protect those rights, build on those rights, but not infringe on them. That is the American philosophy.

What about LGBT people? Do those natural rights apply to them? How about blacks or atheists? It seems to me American philosophy has a lot of caveats. As you rightly pointed out, it's all in people's minds and those can change. One can hope.

 

[tuxbox]

What about LGBT people? Do those natural rights apply to them? How about blacks or atheists? It seems to me American philosophy has a lot of caveats. As you rightly pointed out, it's all in people's minds and those can change. One can hope.

Those rights should apply to the people you listed, but bigotry in America is still a problem. As you are ready know, America is far from perfect.

 

[Inferno]

But inferno, why should law-abiding citizens, who have done no harm to anyone (unless justified like defence), have to sell their guns? How would taking guns from people who cause no issue, help anything?

This is a bullshit argument. Complete and utter bullshit.

Either you're suggesting that Americans are inherently more violent than other nations. That would mean more criminals, more gun violence, more deaths. I think that's a very slippery slope. All nations are probably roughly equal in their inherent violence, with only few outliers, and the violence is shown by a variety of factors I'll get to in a moment.

Or you're suggesting that there are only justified (DGU = Defensive Gun Use) and unjustified (crime) gun uses and deaths. This is absurd off the bat. The most cited study on the topic I could find is a 1997 study in the American Journal of Public Health. It suggests that merely carrying a weapon causes an increase in gun fatality (because you want to play the hero, feel more safe, shoot first and ask later, etc.) and that "more gun carrying by civilians may lead to more deaths." This does not include suicides and unintended killings, such as the child who shot his mother.

A third suggestion would be that DGU's are always justified. This analysis of a study by Kleck and Gertz shows that estimates of DGU's are vastly overestimated. Even if the figures were correct "the 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. " This figure (2.5 million) forwarded by proponents of gun use would suggest that civilian gun carriers, the ones they are lobbying for, are actually more of a risk than the actual criminals.

Needless to say, I believe all three of these (possible) suggestions to be in error. If you believe something else to be true, then please do enlighten me with a somewhat lengthier response.



As for myself, I believe the problem is threefold:

1) American law is needlessly restrictive and strict. The "three strikes and you're out" law, which I understand is still in effect, encourages criminals to dispose of all witnesses when committing crimes, therefore systematically increasing violent crime.

2) Americans own too many weapons (and of the wrong kind) and are encouraged by various people and organisations (NRA et al.) to use the weapon in a defensive manner. This, coupled with some of the gun laws and the attitude often shown by gun owners, must, I think, necessarily lead to an increase in deaths.

3) The gun laws I talked about before make it extremely easy for Americans to obtain and use weapons. (I mean holy shit, ESTIMATES of DGU's? We know them down to the dot in Europe!) Stricter gun laws typically (though there are exceptions) mean fewer gun related deaths.

 

[tuxbox]

As for myself, I believe the problem is threefold:

1) American law is needlessly restrictive and strict. The "three strikes and you're out" law, which I understand is still in effect, encourages criminals to dispose of all witnesses when committing crimes, therefore systematically increasing violent crime.

2) Americans own too many weapons (and of the wrong kind) and are encouraged by various people and organisations (NRA et al.) to use the weapon in a defensive manner. This, coupled with some of the gun laws and the attitude often shown by gun owners, must, I think, necessarily lead to an increase in deaths.

3) The gun laws I talked about before make it extremely easy for Americans to obtain and use weapons. (I mean holy shit, ESTIMATES of DGU's? We know them down to the dot in Europe!) Stricter gun laws typically (though there are exceptions) mean fewer gun related deaths.

I agree with all three points. Well said.

 

[Visaki]

As for myself, I believe the problem is threefold:

1) American law is needlessly restrictive and strict. The "three strikes and you're out" law, which I understand is still in effect, encourages criminals to dispose of all witnesses when committing crimes, therefore systematically increasing violent crime.

2) Americans own too many weapons (and of the wrong kind) and are encouraged by various people and organisations (NRA et al.) to use the weapon in a defensive manner. This, coupled with some of the gun laws and the attitude often shown by gun owners, must, I think, necessarily lead to an increase in deaths.

3) The gun laws I talked about before make it extremely easy for Americans to obtain and use weapons. (I mean holy shit, ESTIMATES of DGU's? We know them down to the dot in Europe!) Stricter gun laws typically (though there are exceptions) mean fewer gun related deaths.

I agree with all three points. Well said.

I kinda have a problem with the first one. Not that the American three strikes laws aren't ridiculous, straight out stupid and harmful to society, but do they really lead to more murders? I just can't imagine that the average three striker would up it to murder from some robbery, thievery or burglary etc just to cover his tracks. Psycopathic people sure, but I don't think (and no, I have no study for this) that the average three striker is like that.

Other than that, yes.

Oh and about the police gun usage here in Finland, and probably in Austria too (I have to ask my aunt, she's been living there for 40 years and is visiting), it's very much news if police are in the streets with heavy gear, meaning armour and MP5's, and front page if they have to fire their guns.

P.S. About the 2nd amendment; is there some reason why it couldn't be changed? Other than bullshit ones like "well it's like permanent because it's one of the original 10 amendments" that is. Oh, and people still miss the "well regulated militia" part of it too often and start to play with semantics to make it say what they want it to stay. I bet there is some writings of the FF's that clarify the matter.

 

[Inferno]

I kinda have a problem with the first one. Not that the American three strikes laws aren't ridiculous, straight out stupid and harmful to society, but do they really lead to more murders? I just can't imagine that the average three striker would up it to murder from some robbery, thievery or burglary etc just to cover his tracks. Psycopathic people sure, but I don't think (and no, I have no study for this) that the average three striker is like that.

I don't have a study on this either, but I'll give you my perspective:
I have it on fairly good authority that a man was jailed for life because of his third offence: Stealing a bunch of DVD's. Now if that is true and if I were the offender, I'd try and make sure nobody can tattle on me. What's the worse that can happen to me? The death sentence? I think prison for life is worse and "murder with the chance of getting away" sounds better. Logical conclusion: Kill whoever saw you.

Not that I'd commit a crime in the first place, of course.

 

[tuxbox]

I kinda have a problem with the first one. Not that the American three strikes laws aren't ridiculous, straight out stupid and harmful to society, but do they really lead to more murders? I just can't imagine that the average three striker would up it to murder from some robbery, thievery or burglary etc just to cover his tracks. Psycopathic people sure, but I don't think (and no, I have no study for this) that the average three striker is like that.

I didn't do a lot of research on this, but I did find this paper.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13784

"However, I find two unintended consequences of the law. First, because Three Strikes flattened the penalty gradient with respect to severity, criminals were more likely to commit more violent crimes. Among third-strike eligible offenders, the probability of committing violent crimes increased by 9 percentage points."

I did not read the entire paper due to laziness on my part.

 

[Popeyewinter]

Wark,

but that's because the 28th amendment can easily be argued to be contradictory to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[WarK]

Wark,

but that's because the 28th amendment can easily be argued to be contradictory to the pursuit of happiness.

I've just watched the final episode of Sons of Anarchy and now I see what you mean. [sarcasm]There's no happiness without people shooting each other all the time.[/sarcasm]

edit:

Then again, my uncle died recently. He basically drank himself to death. That's one way to pursue happiness, I guess.

 

[tuxbox]

Wark,

but that's because the 28th amendment can easily be argued to be contradictory to the pursuit of happiness.

I'm assuming you meant the 18th amendment?