The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[NYBURBS]

This is very confused. You're saying law enforcement agencies are unnecessary in the U.S.? And you claim that a majority of Americans are unwilling to give up their assault rifles? Most Americans do not own firearms period, let alone assault rifles.

We have already surrendered the right to defend ourselves to the government. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is one of the foundational principles of the modern state.

No it's not confused and people have not surrendered the right of self defense. I'm well aware of the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," but it's my understanding (or position if you will) that that pertains to violence to enforce laws and mandates or exact retribution, and not violence to defend one's self. Self defense has long been recognized in both common and statutory law, and the notion of fighting back against an aggressor pre-dates any form of law that you might point to.

Btw, I never said that I think law enforcement agencies are unnecessary, only that most people would not accept surrendering the right of self defense. Enforcing laws and court orders are one thing, preserving one's right to their own life when under attack though is about as fundamental a right as can be thought of.

[NYBURBS]

I question your data source NYBURBS because more 358 people died by firearm in Philadelphia, PA alone in 2010.

It's not my data, it's the FBI's data:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

Though it would seem the chart I linked just now is slightly different from the one I originally looked at, but the numbers don't change much:

2010 Murders total- 13,164

2010 Murders using a rifle- 367

[fivekatz]

I now see the distinction which is rifle -367 . And I suppose we are to conclude that the FBI's classfication of assault weapons would rifle as opposed to firearms type not stated.

Total homicides- 13,752

Total homicides by firearm- 8,874

So only 65% of the murders recorded were done firearm, not bad....unless you happen tp have been one of those 8,874 poor souls or someone who loved them.

This of course doesn't account for how many people are either permanently maimed, killed themselves by accident or committed suicide with firearms.

Total firearm deaths in 2010 were almost 3 9/11 attacks.

[broncofan]

With visibly unhinged conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones on the loose - who achieves the impossible by making Piers Morgan look like a reasonable human being - the gun lobby needs more credible spokesmen. This man is crazy. Maybe he should be deported instead of Morgan.

yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn

This is a very useful video to watch to show people what we have to fear from some segments of society. Now this is not to tar all gun owners or even those arguing against gun control generally as there are many here who have made rational and intelligent arguments whether we agree with them or not (NYBURBS etc).

However, I do want to point out after watching this video that I now recognize a lot of the more obscure posters here as Alex Jones acolytes who have parroted some of his most dubious arguments. Beandip I think was talking about the mass production of suicide pills. Others such as Jamie Michelle have ranted about how government is the greatest mass murderer of all time and even pointed to the same article referenced by Alex Jones purporting to demonstrate this statistically. Now, I think you already have to be fairly dim and a bit crazy to be a follower of someone like this, but it is nice to know the source of these bizarre hypotheses. This is a man who literally thinks he is being followed in NYC by members of the New World Order, something clinically not very far removed from paranoid schizophrenia.

[broncofan]

I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.

A major problem I have with guns is cultural. Those who are obsessed with them are expressing values that are selfish, hostile, and paranoid. They have decided to forego all the refinements of modern living in favor of the false sense of relevance they get from their guns. Instead of accepting the vagaries of life, they've decided to forego living like decent human beings.

Some might think that's a stretch, but if you really think about the value preferences of gun owners who so strenuously object to any gun control it's not. These are individuals who have placed an inordinately high value on something only beneficial in the most extreme and apocalpytic scenario. That doesn't sound very balanced does it? Wouldn't you know it by listening to Alex Jones?

[thombergeron]

I'm well aware of the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," but it's my understanding (or position if you will) that that pertains to violence to enforce laws and mandates or exact retribution, and not violence to defend one's self.

That's a distinction without a difference. We have laws against assault, trespass, robbery, etc. We have delegated enforcement of those laws to various professional law enforcement agencies. That is why victims of assault, trespass, robbery, etc. generally call the police rather than shooting back, and why those who do shoot back often find themselves facing some legal issues.

It also seems problematic that the only mode of self-defense that you're able to conceive of is by use of a firearm. For one thing, only about 3 in 10 Americans own a firearm. So, by your contention, 70% of the American population is defenseless. For another thing, my own mode of home defense consists entirely of a telephone, a wireless security camera, and a Louisville Slugger. If you own a firearm for home defense, it is an empirical fact that my household is safer than yours.

Murders involving rifles are a very small number of the overall homicides in this country.

In 2010 there were:

12,996 reported murders, of that only 358 were committed using a rifle.

In comparison, 1,704 people were murdered by the use of knives or other sharp objects, 540 by blunt objects, and 745 from being punched/kicked.

Needless to say, killings by the use of semi-automatic rifles have been over-hyped by the media.

I'm curious about your perceived threshold for policy action. From a public health perspective, all gun deaths are preventable deaths, and most of those 358 (or 367) people would still be alive if this country had a more rational gun control regime. And you cite statistics from a single year, while similar levels of gun violence occur year after year after year.

Thus, in the eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorism, by an order of magnitude. Even starting the clock on Sept. 10, 2001, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorists.

And yet, to address the former, we can't even get a bill through Congress, while in response to the latter, we have deployed the largest military force in the history of humankind and have spent over a trillion dollars.

Again, and for the umpteenth time, no one is arguing that we can end murder through gun regulation. But saying that we shouldn't bother passing reasonable legislation to prevent 300-some odd deaths a year just because some other people are going to be beaten to death seems nonsensical to me.

[hippifried]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Snortwheezezzzhuh?
Oh they're coming to take away everybody's guns again? ...& again? ...& again? ...& again?...ad nauseum... ??? Wake me up if anything ever actually happens.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[broncofan]

There is something attractive to people about guns that cannot be explained even by their potential effectiveness in thwarting harm. The probability that someone needs a gun on a given day when they're out in public must be on the order of one in many million. Yet many people cannot change a tire. Okay, so the consequences of not being able to change a tire are less severe.

But I'm sure many people who carry guns cannot perform CPR. What about the potential that they have a serious allergy they are unaware of? Do they carry shots of epinephrine to prevent their child from having an anaphylactic reaction?

When I said that an individual may be in his own individual capacity safer by owning a gun, it probably is empirically doubtful. But I understand one man believing that's the case and wanting to carry a gun. However, the odds of needing it are so small that anyone who chooses to carry a gun is probably looking to use it. There will be a drive to create the necessity that doesn't really exist. The simple act of buying a military grade weapon should be disqualifying given what it says about a person.

People who desire such weapons both envision and create a society nobody should want to live in.

[NYBURBS]

I now see the distinction which is rifle -367 . And I suppose we are to conclude that the FBI's classfication of assault weapons would rifle as opposed to firearms type not stated.

Total homicides- 13,752

Total homicides by firearm- 8,874

So only 65% of the murders recorded were done firearm, not bad....unless you happen tp have been one of those 8,874 poor souls or someone who loved them.

This of course doesn't account for how many people are either permanently maimed, killed themselves by accident or committed suicide with firearms.

Total firearm deaths in 2010 were almost 3 9/11 attacks.

Yes, semi-automatic rifles are classified under "rifle" as far as I know, though I will try to find a source to back that up. Firearms not stated is because the reports made by local agencies to the FBI are not always complete or accurate.

People do die from the use of firearms, I don't think anyone has ever tried to deny that fact. Nor would I attempt to diminish the pain someone feels at the loss of a loved one, but all of this still doesn't remove the fact that people have a right to defend themselves from violence. Thinking that the police will come to your rescue is foolish because most times they arrive well after the fact.

Btw, I've seen several suicide scenes, some were done by hanging, some by train, some by fire, some by pills. I won't argue that a firearm makes it easier in a moment of desperation, but people that are intent on ending their lives will find another way even if firearms are removed from the picture. I don't think that is a sufficiently justifiable reason to attempt to remove another person's right to keep and bear arms.

[broncofan]

Thinking that the police will come to your rescue is foolish because most times they arrive well after the fact.

You make some good points but I think there's a larger picture. Rights can be tempered by collective concerns. And this is the conflict we're dealing with.

In my personal experience I have gone 31 years and never touched a gun. I'm not saying that makes me superior. But I have never seen someone brandish a gun. It's not that I live a sheltered existence either. This possibility we're talking about is remote. The right we're discussing is based on such exigency.

If someone pulls a gun on me and I have no way of defending myself, I accept the risk. All of these risks are not really diminished that much by carrying around a weapon everywhere you go. It's like wearing a bicycle helmet on an airplane. Or sleeping with a stuffed animal. You can never buy total security.