I wrote:
>> But this is not my argument at all. I'm not saying guns
>> transform people. What I was trying to say is that guns make
>> it easy to cause enormous damage when people are at their
>> worst.
You wrote:
>Surprise, SUVs do this!
Yeah, but most people need cars to drive around. Although they can be used for violent means, violence is not why people buy them. Guns are designed to inflict injury.
This is an important difference. If you make it difficult to get a car, then automobile related deaths will decline, but nobody will be able to get around. If you make if difficult to get a gun, you reduce gun related injury without otherwise inconveniencing people. There is no offsetting consideration with guns like there are with cars (or many other items you could use as weapons).
>Anyway, that sounds to me like you are saying that the difference
>between a mad person and a mad person facing a homicide charge is the
>existence of a gun. So you're saying that having a gun makes you more
>likely to be a murderer, especially under stupid circumstances.
Yes, exactly. Obviously this isn't a rampant problem. Plenty of people can get angry without shooting someone else. But it happens enough to be a social problem.
>Well, the numbers don't bear you out. CCW holders in Texas, for instance,
>have a lower incidence of violent crime than the population in
>general. Yes that's right, people who've gone to the trouble to get a
>CCW permit are actually *more level headed* than the average Joe.
Sounds like a good argument for regulation to me. So I would argue the numbers do bear me out. I don't think gun related injuries are small enough to be insignificant. I admit that the number of deaths is small relative to the number of guns, but the social costs are still high.
>So now I *really* think you should spend the day believing you are
>carrying a gun and see how many times you feel you'd be using it. My
>guess is that the only thing that would change is that you'd view the
>world in a more rational and responsible way: you'd be careful of
>potential threats, and you'd take the responsibility of your weapon
>quite seriously. In short, I think you'd become a model citizen :)
How is this at all relevant? This argument may hold for some folks, but not all of them. Individual reactions to guns vary over a wide range. Read Wojtek's recent post on this, if you haven't already.
>Of *course* it happens, but not with the kind of alarming regularity
>that you seem to be afraid of. C'mon Breatt: do the math. 100M guns,
>and a handful of stupid people gives rise to the idea that we should
>get rid of the guns and not the handful of stupid people?
What I've said is the threat to public safety is more pressing than the (dubious at best, in my opinion) benefit guns provide in terms of personal safety and as a check on gov't power.
>Where is the praise for the 99.99% of gunowners who aren't stupid?
Why should I praise somebody for not inflicting injury with a gun? This is what should be expected of gun owners. I'm focusing on the people who do cause problems, or more specifically, the ease with which these bad eggs can acquire guns.
To give you just one anecdote, I remember a woman who shot a few people in Chicago a number of years ago. She was mentally unstable. She got the gun she used in her killing spree entirely legally, with no question asked and no background check.
We use more caution when deciding whether or not a person can drive a car. What's wrong with tightening the rules on who can buy guns, and where they can be kept?
>On any other issue where you took the actions of same incredibly small
>portion of the population and applied some kind of harsh arbitrary
>measure against them would bring huge cries of foul. Why not here?
Because guns are too deadly and destructive. A few bad apples with guns is too many.
> The question is, what should people be allowed to have?
>
>Unfortunately, while you must think you're framing the question this
>way, the *real* question you are asking is: "what should law-abiding
>people be allowed to have?" -- and frankly, I'm not big on taking away
>from people anything that they use responsibly.
This is crap. So, should we sell B-52's to the public because if a law-abiding citizen has one he or she would use it responsibly? If you make destructive weapons available, they will get used inappropriately at times. In my opinion, guns are too deadly to just sell willy-nilly. Fine, we have some regulations now, but they don't go far enough or aren't enforced.
I have also said, and will reiterate, that I'm NOT advocating a ban on guns. I'm advocating much tighter regulations on them.
Because next you'll be
>talking about dildoes or bibles or fatty foods. Since most gun crimes are
>already committed by illegal or illegally obtained guns, you'd just be taking
>guns away from law-abiding folks.
This is slippery slope bullsh*t. I have no problem taking guns away from law-abiding folks, or at least restricting people's ability to purchase them and their freedom of use. This says nothing about my position on dildoes or fatty foods, although based on the argument I've used against guns you should be able to predict that I would NOT support the same kind of regulation for those items.
>Hey, here's a crazy idea: let's find a way to solve the real problem of
>how criminals get guns rather than worry about how law abiding people
>get guns (largely they get them from Wal-Mart). I believe this is
>largely a question of enforcement and incarceration.
I support this notion, but without tighter regulations it will be nearly impossible to accomplish this. Just take the case of automatic weapons. They are illegal, but I could get one tomorrow if I wanted. The hardware and the information required to convert a non-auto into an auto are readily available.
Its irresponsible to give everyone access to a dangerous item without adequate safeguards - this principle is used every day. Dangerous chemicals are locked up, dangerous equipment has extensive safety features, etc. Guns are very dangerous, and yet we don't require the same kind of regulations that we do on other dangerous items.
Brett