?TS: Stay the same.
In his typical way, TS went on to justify his amazing answer with a non-sequitur argument about criminals buying guns in neighboring states. He desperately wants to avoid looking directly at the question posed.
In order for the number of murders to stay the same if all guns magically disappeared, you would have to believe that every single gun murder would be committed with another weapon, including all the multiple murders. Lanza would have killed 27 people with what, a knife, a bomb. Perhaps James Holmes would have clubbed all those people to death in the movie theater. I suppose Loughner and Cho could have used machetes or samurai swords.
The absurdity of this position is so apparent that in the other thread I thought TS was going to avoid answering altogether. I don't think he's a stupid man and I don't think his opinion of me is such that he'd lie and expect me to buy it. That leaves only one possibility that I can think of. His bias for the gun-rights argument is so deep that it blinds him to obvious truths.
If guns magically disappeared, there would be fewer murders and lower rates of violence. It could not be otherwise since 70% of all murders are committed with guns, the most lethal and efficient tool for the job.
The reason TS's sub-conscience cannot allow such an admission is that once it's accepted the entire gun-rights position against gun control crumbles. If proper gun control laws were implemented fewer people would own guns legally and fewer criminals would enjoy the gun availability they do now. Lives would be saved.
If guns magically disappeared, we would be in Australia. Actually, guns didn't disappear. The government had a buy-back (stop sobbing in fear, gunsucks), requires a 28 day waiting period to purchase, and has other restrictions. Gun deaths have greatly decreased. That is due to the fact that the buyback was not universal. Gunsucks in Australia can get guns to murder people. However, it is more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAustralia was able to see the same drop in murder rates that the US had over that same period, but we got to keep our guns. Added quite a few, actually.
DeleteWhat's really funny, is that Australians have been slowly buying guns back since the 1996 confiscation, and have now returned to pre-Port Arthur levels in ownership and quantity. So that period of dropping "gun death" rates you cite actually coincided with a growth in gun ownership. Ouch for you.
TS plays a bit fast and loose with the numbers. One has to remember AUS had very low murder rates before Port Arthur compared to the US. So pretending this decrease was some statistical anomaly is disingenuous. Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.
DeleteFurther, as PO notes the buyback wasn't universal. So, only certain weapons were affected.
Jade: “Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.”
DeleteWho cares if its “gun related”. Don’t you want to know if people still died by substitute methods? As I said, total murder rates were down too (just as they were in the US) but let’s keep the topic on meaningful statistics, shall we? But read again what I said above. That 10 year period of decreasing murders was while gun ownership was increasing in Australia- just like stateside. If you plot gun ownership over time in Australia, you’d see a big drop off in 1996, followed by a steady rise back to where they were in 1995. And during that steady rise, their murder rates were dropping. Their murder rate did not take a big dive in 1996 and then climb back up. How do you deal with that?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504
You give TS to much credit.
ReplyDeleteI am incapable of "Mike Sense". All you are saying is that because I look at numbers instead of the rat's nest of logical deductions in your head, I am "incapable of honestly". You keep coming back to this 70% figure, but I showed you how CA has that same 70% even though they have one of the smallest gun ownership rates and the number one ranking in laws. That is when you typically blame Arizona for being 3hrs away, but that flys in the face of what you just said about guns being immediate, convenient and abundant being a factor. Which goes back to what I'm saying about looking at murder rates. There is nothing more simple and clear than that.
ReplyDeleteWhat you discount in your anecdotes is that guns are used for defense. We know you do this because you've used you "mike sense" to determine that good uses are negligible. Again, we could just look at murder rates to see the effect of guns on murder- both positively and negatively. When we see that murder rates don't correlate to gun ownership or gun laws, that should tell you something. Unless you use "Mike sense" instead of common sense.
That's some major-league bad thinking by TS.
ReplyDeleteHis reply simply isn't rational; a gun enhances both the ability and feasibility of killing. A baseball bat or a knife means you have to get pretty close to your target. The closer you get, of course, dramatically decreases your ability to kill as a target may be able to ovrtpower you or run away.
I'd suggest TS is being very disingenuous here. After all, if he really believed killing would be unaffected by a complete lack of firearms, does he believe that we should send troops into combat with bats, knives and pointy sticks?
That aside, if our ability and feasibility to kill is undeterred by the absence of firearms--isn't this an argument for gun control? After all, if one can just as easily defend oneself with a bat, knife or pointy stick---why subsidize the firearms industry?
That's not the point I'm arguing, Jade. I've never said guns are ineffective at killing. If you want to kill someone, a gun is a pretty good choice in most circumstances. But here's the thing- if someone is trying to kill you, and you don't want to be killed, a gun is currently the best thing to use. Will you agree with that? If not, who's the one being disingenuous? And what we see right now, is that murder rates are not correlated with the presence of more guns. What's your explanation for that, Jade?
DeleteLet's take a look at this last paragraph by Jadegold. As I explained, neither of us are arguing that guns are useless, but even if they were- that is reason for control and even ban consumers access to a product. Yes, "for the hell of it" is a good enough reason to ban something. It's also quite revealing that Jade considers allowing some semblance of a free market "subsidizing". This is the mentality we deal with. There is such contempt for freedom from these people that they feel every little thing needs government approval and control of the market. I think the pro-gun side WAY over calls people "commies", but this is some serious commie-talk coming out of Jadegold here.
DeleteI see TS is trying to move the discussion away from his original assertion that murder rates would be unaffected by the absense of all guns. But, in doing so, he engages in still more bad thinking.
ReplyDeleteYes, if I knew for certain that someone was going to try and kill me--I'd want a gun. But left out of the equation is the fact the person trying to kill me would almost certainly have to have a firearm for any chance of success. And contrary to the movies and TV, bad guys with guns intent on murder don't usually announce their intentions from a different zip code.
TS also omits to mention that not everyone is tempermentally suited to own a firearm. As we all know, you are 3X more likely to be a murder victim if there's a firearm in the home. If guns were such a boon to self-defense, why is it that owing a gun dramatically increases the risk of that which you seek to prevent?
Failing in his argument of self-defense, TS attempts the hyperbolic "JG wants to ban all guns!!!!"
As I've noted, there is no group calling for a total ban of all firearms. What these groups do call for is regulation. regulation which is applied to all rights. Beca8use there's a 1A doesn't mean I can say whatever I want without consequence.
Jade: “I see TS is trying to move the discussion away from his original assertion that murder rates would be unaffected by the absense of all guns.”
DeleteUh, no, I’m not doing that. I stand by my statement.
Jade: “But left out of the equation is the fact the person trying to kill me would almost certainly have to have a firearm for any chance of success.”
Well, maybe you can take on assailants with edged and blunt weapons using your Steven Segal moves, but not everyone has superstar ninja skills. And since assailants usually aren’t out looking for a challenge, they tend to pick on people who are weaker than them. I guess that’s why they stay away from you. But this isn’t about you. There is a passive effect of guns in society where someone may think twice about attacking another person for fear of getting shot. That’s what you guys overlook in your “if there were no guns” fantasy.
Jade: “As we all know, you are 3X more likely to be a murder victim if there's a firearm in the home. If guns were such a boon to self-defense, why is it that owing a gun dramatically increases the risk of that which you seek to prevent?
Please. I destroyed you last time you brought up Kellerman. Don’t you remember how I brought up that the same study says you’re 4.4 times more likely to be murdered if you rent your home, rather than own? Then you go off saying it’s because they tend to have less income, etc. but this was right after you explained how Kellerman’s study isolated each factor from each other. Income was supposed to be removed from the gun ownership result, right? So why wasn’t it removed from renting? It was comical.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=6413815707505551810
You also have to remember that Kellerman only looked at three counties in the whole US, and all of them were urban counties. We know that urban areas are where the most violence is. And we know that the rural areas are where the most guns are. So Kellerman didn’t even count all those place where people own lots of guns and don’t get murdered in his study where he concluded that having a gun means you’re more likely to be murdered. That’s pretty obviously biased, but you guys need sound bites that you can cry for 20 years.
Jade: “Failing in his argument of self-defense, TS attempts the hyperbolic "JG wants to ban all guns!!!!"
I said that various gun bans are part of the gun control agenda. But you also have to remember that this discussion is about how awesome you guys think it would be if all guns magically disappeared. My point is that you are implying that it is perfectly fine for the government to ban something for no reason.
Jade: “As I've noted, there is no group calling for a total ban of all firearms. What these groups do call for is regulation.”
They call for regulation… and bans of thing like magazines, pistol grips, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, barrel shrouds, big guns, little guns, soft bullets, hard bullets, and on and on and on. Of course the bans are an admission that regulation doesn’t work. Why ban it if you can successfully regulate it?
We also have to remember that Jadegold considers San Francisco’s Prop H of 2005 “just a little bit of regulation”- which banned and confiscated all handguns (registered handguns), and banned the sale and transfer of all other guns and ammunition. Anyone who doesn’t already own long guns would be under a complete and total gun ban. Anyone moving into the city would be under a complete and total gun ban. After the last remaining long gun owner dies, the city would be under a complete and total gun ban. But nobody wants to ban all guns he says.
Jadegold, thanks for taking on TS, a frustrating and impossible task, at least if you expect some type of honest acquiescence from him. My "mike sense" tells me that TS slickly tried to muddy the waters in order to avoid defending his absurd assertion that murders would remain the same without guns. He must really believe that: "Lanza would have killed 27 people with what, a knife, a bomb. Perhaps James Holmes would have clubbed all those people to death in the movie theater. I suppose Loughner and Cho could have used machetes or samurai swords."
ReplyDeleteThere’s an aggregate, Mike. Again you fixate on anecdotes, but only one side of the equation. Your brain doesn’t think about self-defense because you’ve already written it off.
DeleteMore obfuscation. The "other side" of the equation has nothing to do with what I asked. That's a completely different discussion, which of course we win. The only way legitimate DGUs can outnumber the misuse of guns is if you believe the wilder more exaggerated estimates.
DeleteBut back to our present situation. I'll give you another chance to answer the question. If guns magically disappeared, would the overall murder rate go up, go down or stay the same?
Stay the same. Why are you asking that again? Guns don't have a net harm for society. We can see that in the numbers. It's not just about how you feel- it's measurable.
DeleteThere's no aggregate. There's no measurable data. There's only your common sense and honesty.
Delete"Lanza would have killed 27 people with what, a knife, a bomb. Perhaps James Holmes would have clubbed all those people to death in the movie theater. I suppose Loughner and Cho could have used machetes or samurai swords."
Is that what you believe? Or, if you accept my point about those few mass shootings, you must believe that every other gun murder would have happened with another weapon and knife murders would have actually risen to make up for the Lanza, Holmes, Loughner and Cho shortfall.
What do you mean, “there’s no measurable data”? What’s wrong with looking up murder rates?
DeleteMike: “…you must believe that every other gun murder would have happened with another weapon…”
Defense, Mike. Guns have a passive and active effect of deterring crime as well as being actively used for crime. The statement you make shows that you can’t get your brain to even go there. All you can think about some famous shooting being a less deadly stabbing instead. I don’t argue that knifes are just as good for mass killing. Instead I am saying knifes are not nearly as good for defense of self or others, and that has an effect.
"Guns don't have a net harm for society."
ReplyDeleteAnother post Mike.