Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , , Australia
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    This is by way of a plea for a bit of support from those who, thankfully, possess more rights than I do.

    I and a few others are engaged in a debate on an Australian Ethics Forum and we could use some backup or even some frontline troops!

    This is typical of a very recent anti post:


    "Remove the US from that graph Samuel, the song remains the same. It is a very clear pattern. Let me know which countries the data is wrong for and we can delete them. I expect the pattern will still remain the same. More guns = more gun deaths.

    As for your constitutional ramble, frankly I don't give a rat's arse about the US constitution. Or what the US Supreme court says. If that is so important to you move north east a few thousand k's"
    Nice chap:XActually, if I could afford to I wouldn't mind taking his advice (for a trip...home is home), I'm still in contact with a few Americans that I served with in Korea.

    Anyway here's a link, feel free to drop in for a read or whatever you like.

    http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/default.asp

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Almost as bad as Democratic Underground, I feel your pain, but some of those folks won't get the gist of the self defense argument until somebody starts beating on them with a baseball bat, and they have possesion of a handgun to defend themselves.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    The concept of "more guns = more gun deaths" is based on the assumption that gun deaths and gun violence is committed proportionally across the population. The fact is that in the US roughly 90% of our violent crime is committed by about 8% of our population, most of them convicted felons who are prohibited by law to posses a firearm, let alone use one. Annually in the US, depending on whose figures you prefer, somewhere between 1.5-2.7 million violent crimes are prevented or stopped by a law abiding citizen (LAC) with a firearm. Of those instances, less than 10% of the time is the firearm discharged (showing great restraint among the legally gun owning popultion). In less than 1% of the cases does the offender die from gunshot wounds (I don't have exact percentages readily at hand but I'm sure someone else will). So, in reality, when law abiding American citizens use firearms to prevent millions of violent crimes per year, 99% of the time the perpetrator is not killed, ergo, more guns does NOT = more gun deaths.

    Furthermore, LAC licensed to conceal carry handguns are more than 12X less likely than the general population to have any interaction with law enforcement for any infraction or criminal act than the general population. In short, we who are licensed to carry firearms are as a group, among the most law abiding citizens in the nation and are actually even less likely than police officers to commit a crime. I have never seen statistics as to the open carry population and I think it would be nearly impossible to obtain such statistics, however, I expect they would be much the same. Citizens who choose to openly carry a handgun are putting themselves out there in the public and law enforcement eye for great scrutiny. Typically, only people who fall into the LAC category, who take the time to be very cognizant of the law and to follow it, and who have nothing to fear from law enforcement legally (ie they have no arrest warrants or criminal history) are going to be willing to carry a firearm openly and subject themselves to such scrutiny.

    What is disingenuously included in our handgun violence statistics are gang shootings (criminals shooting other criminals and most of that 8% of the rogue, hard core criminal population) and suicides. As Japan's recent spike in suicide rates show us, eliminating handguns does not eliminate suicides. Furthermore, many anti-gun groups include people as old as 23-25 in the "child deaths" category thereby putting those most likely to commit a violent crime (those 18-25) in the child category. In nearly all other standard statistics, "child" only includes those up to the age of 17 years old, as those 18 and older are in nearly every legal category considered adults (handgun ownership and alcohol consumption which are limited to 21 and older being the primary excepted categories).

    Because of the high legal standards allowing use of a firearm by a law abiding citizen (ie we cannot use our firearm or even draw our firearm in situations where law enforcement officers can and do), law abiding citizens are far less likely than law enforcement to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander and we hit our intended targets more often. That is not a dig at law enforcement (LE) just the facts. LE have to use their firearms in situations where non-LE citizens would not or could not. LE is also actively pursuing and often cornering dangerous criminals whereas LAC are only acting to end the threat the criminal poses. If we can get the criminal to run away merely by the presence of our firearm we have succeeded in self-defense. LE must run after the criminal and try to apprehend him which leads to scenarios unlikely for LAC to ever find themselves, which makes direct comparison of LE shooting statistics to LAC shooting statistics somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.

    Hope some of the above helps in your struggle to inform your fellow Aussies.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I read up on some of the topics on their board....


    Wow, you cat's do need some help over there don't you? Your "Watermelons" are outrageous in thier claims.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I didn't have a very warm welcome, lol.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    ... and more cars equals more car deaths. So?

    The point they're missing is the deterrent and defense factor.

    If I defend myself against a bad guy who is trying to kill me with a shovel, indeed we have one more "gun death." But in reality we've just "converted" a "shovel death" into a "gun death." A "gun death" doesn't necessarily mean a net gain in deaths. Neither are people any more dead, nor death any more evil based on the tool used.

    Plus the HUGE difference here that the good guy is still alive. Which would they rather?

    What about all the attacks that don't even happen or don't succeed because the victim has an adequate defensive tool (gun)? If we prevent 5 "gun deaths" for every one that succeeds, we're still up a net 4 lives. In that case, counting only the deaths is woefully misleading.

    And lastly, even if freedom makes things more dangerous (which I don't believe for a second), I'd rather be free. Give me liberty or give me death!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Eoin....

    Do what a lady friend of mine does.

    If more guns = more gun death, then conversely, more steak knives = more knife death.

    Ban steak knives!


    This should provide useful information for you. If you choose the .pdf file, start on or around page 33 or page 50.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....6?OpenDocument

    Ban high places. "Falls (W00–W19) accounted for 1,225 deaths registered in 2006."

    Ban sharps. 61 people were killed with a sharp object used as a weapon.

    Ban vehicles. They killed over 1652 people in 2006.

    Firearms were used to kill 29 people that were not holding them.

    Swimming pools should be banned. 212 people drowned on accident. Better ban baths, too.

    701 people accidently died of poison. Better ban poisons.

    Aren't these people concerned about SAFETY?


    Point out that calling the cops is the same as requesting the delivery of a gun to your house, if it gets there in time.

    Find out what the vehicular homicide rate is in your country. Make that argument.

    When you get the response "but vehicles have OTHER uses too!", point out that they are correct, and vehicular homicide is no different than murder by firearm: It is a person misusing an inanimate object.

    They hate that one.


    In all seriousness though, they are probably a lost cause. Some people have their heads so far in the sand (and by "sand", I mean "their own rectal cavity"), it doesn't matter what you say to them.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    I didn't have a very warm welcome, lol.
    Got a link?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    DopaVash wrote:
    I didn't have a very warm welcome, lol.
    Got a link?
    http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_foru...PN=1&TPN=7

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'll admit that I've given up on trying to turn anti's to our cause through use of words. Instead, I intend to do so through demonstrating the safety and normality of firearms through open carry.

    With that being said, I would avoid the "guns make us safer collectively" argument. The validity of this argument relies on crime statistics. Essentially, by making the argument that "guns help more people than they hurt", you are setting up a potential situation where gun deaths rise (for whatever reason) and guns can then be banned. In other words, you're still personifying guns, but just looking at different statistics as the anti's. If the day comes where gun violence rises disproportionately to gun self-defense, your argument either becomes invalid, or worse yet forms an argument for the anti's to ban guns.

    Instead, I would focus on the individual aspect. When I carry a gun, I may or may not contribute to the safety of society. However, I do contribute to my own safety. Freedom of gun ownership allows individuals to choose whether or not they will let themselves be victims of violent crime. Unfortunately, this is a more rights-based argument, and I don't expect many socially-minded individuals to understand. These are the people who refer to personal responsibility as "selfish" and such.

    Another attempt might be at the "tool" aspect of guns. Look at a gun. Pick it up. It's a chunk of metal. How is this piece of metal any different from the earth from whence it came? It is not. It is a piece of material like an air conditioner, table, gutter, or anything else. It has no inherent evilness, morality, or other animate attributes. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil. And this good or evil will exist regardless of what tools are available for their exercise. The cure to a tool's being used for evil necessitates a cure for that evil, the root source, rather than attempting to eliminate the tool. Unfortunately, this interpretation involves a lack of hoplophobia, which is difficult to overcome in a society that demonizes guns.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , , Australia
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Thanks very much for the replys; would any of you mind if I 'reprinted' them on the Ethics Forum?

    however they'd have more impact if they came from anyone but me ! ! So use the link (above) I, at least, will welcome you, not openly, because then it might look as if I was a Recruiting Sergeant:celebrate

    Happy Fourth Of July.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    i hope those people never come to the united states.

    please stay down under

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Eoin wrote:
    Thanks very much for the replys; would any of you mind if I 'reprinted' them on the Ethics Forum?
    I don't mind if you take mine, but perhaps throw in a link to my profile on here...

  14. #14
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Heh, I told my dad not to move to Australia........But no, he wanted to move there.:?

    Oh well, I got his guns when he left.

    Anybody else notice how they use the good ole' USA as a template for most of the arguments? Interesting.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    You are welcome to reprint my comments. I am not inclined to become a member there just to post up the comments. I have never liked "hit and run posting" on forums of which I am an active member and do not do that to others' forums.

    Best of luck with educating the membership there.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •