The Gun Control Myth!

Below, I have linked two articles which I believe accurately and truthfully expose the myth of controlling crime through gun control legislation. While gun control has always been a heated issue, few rational individuals will disagree with this: enacting tougher gun control laws only hurt those who legally obtain firearms since, after all, the criminal, by definition, does not comply with laws. Please read and discuss.

Gun Law Update: Gun-Rights Testing Planned

Legislating away rights in an attempt to curb crime

reply to post by skoalman88

While gun control has always been a heated issue, few rational individuals will disagree with this: enacting tougher gun control laws only hurt those who legally obtain firearms since, after all, the criminal, by definition, does not comply with laws . . discuss.

Here’s some cheap unsought advice.

You can’t open a genuine conversation if you start by saying “ . . few rational individuals will disagree . . “ thereby limiting your conversation to only those who are IRRATIONAL?

LETHALITY. Being at least partially rational, there are some issues what need to be out in the open. 1) Lethality. Of the 110,000-120,000 people who are injured by gunshot each year, on average 30,000 die.

All other accidents per year (except automobiles) serious enough to require medical attention - and thereby come to the notice of the CDC - number over 21,000,000. Of that number about 50,000 die. (Automobile victims are counted elsewhere but deaths number around 39,000 a year). All numbers are ballpark from my memory off the CDC website.

A quick look-see at the numbers shows that gunshot victims die at the rate of about 1 in 4. 25% (1 in 4). In other words, one-fourth of gunshot victims injured seriously enough to seek medical aid, die! OTOH, “ victims of “all other accidents” die at a rate of about 0.2% (2 in 1,000). Gunshots are substantially more lethal than “all other accidents” by a factor of 5 in 10,000. (Or 1 in 2,000.). That is to say, gunshots are 2,000 times more LETHAL and more likely to result in death than any victim of the “all other accidents” category.

When your real concern is to reduce the number of deaths by accidents the rational person does not start with the smallest number - say death by falling off a step ladder - fewer than 1,000 per year - but would instead start with the highest number - death by gunshot. That’s the rational person.

AVAILABILITY. The second area of interest to anyone who is serious about making our society safer must face the fact that guns are all to easily available. I have never brought a gun on the street, but I “hear” that a gun is available for $25 to $50 anytime and almost anywhere. The source of those illegal weapons is mostly those stolen from citizens who owned the guns legally. Street guns are mostly obtained by thieves in burglary and car thefts. The most recent numbers I have heard - 280 million guns owned by 80 million gun owners - lays out the dimension of the problem. There are more than 2 million home burglaries and 1 million car thefts each year.

It is also true that many gun makers produce more and gun importers bring in more guns than they can sell, which makes you wonder if they are not purposely supplying the illegal stolen weapons market? We know it’s a fact that early in the amphetamine drug problem the Eli Lily Company of Indianapolis shipped double the amount legal pharmacists were buying to compensate for the stolen or hijacked drugs. It is hard for me to call that “responsible” conduct by a legitimate company.

So Mr S/M88, we have two issues facing us. !) Lethality and 2) availability. These are the two issues GUN CONTROL advocates mean to address.

How? Well here is one proposal. Let’s issue a paper title for each gun exactly like the title for your car or boat. No gun, no title, no title no gun. Let’s make the actual transfer (sale) of a gun allowed only in the presence of the same local clerk’s office that handles cars or boats. Buyer and seller must appear at the same time before the clerk, sign the requisite papers, and pay the ordinary transfer fees and taxes.

This means we can easily trace the chain of ownership of any firearm. I have a real strong feeling that alone will reduce the flow of legal guns into the illegal market. It means if one guy is “losing” too many guns to thefts, we can get a handle on him. Maybe we say the first 2 or 3 guns bought or sold in a year go for a $10 or $25 fee. But sales, transfers or purchases or thefts beyond that number cost say, $100 to $1,000 per weapon. This would take the quick profit motive out to the occasional gun owner who turned gun runner.

Penalties? I'm not much into penalties. I'd suggest confiscate and destroy any firearm found in violation, and fine the owner or possessor $500. That's good enough on penalties.

RESPONSIBILITY. Let’s tax all long guns $50 a year and short guns $100 a year. Persons under 17 living on a working farm would be allowed one .22 or .410 firearm at $1 a year. $1 per 100 for rim fire cartridges and $1 for 50 center fire under 250 grains and $1 per 20 rounds for center fire over 250 grains. Put that money into a trust fund to pay the hospitals for treating gunshot victims and maybe a flat $100,000 to anyone’s family who is killed by a gun. I believe these kind of measures would encourage gun owners to be more careful who they sell their firearms to and would reduce the number of crimes committed with unregistered guns. This I call Gun Control.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by skoalman88


Don't need to read more; already have strong opinions. There is one, and ONLY ONE, reason for any government to demand a license or registration for a gun; it is so that, when they want to take them away, they know where to go to collect them. A simple look at the last century shows clearly what happens in any nation where the rights to gun ownership are taken from the people.

No amount of required licensing or paperwork is ever going to control illegal guns. The criminals don't care now; why should they start caring simply because more laws are passed?

Crime rates go DOWN in places where any honest person can carry a concealed weapon. Crime rates go UP in places with strict gun control laws. This ought to be a no-brainer.

It is also worth noting, since this IS a conspiracy site, that the ones pushing for heavier restrictions on guns are the same ones that want to take more of our money, weaken our defenses, undermine our moral foundations, get friendly with our enemies, and so forth.

Let me see if I can spell this out.

1. People with no guns are easy to control.
2. Those in power have no intention of giving up their guns.
3. Dictators are HUGE fans of gun control.

Do we need more?? Fine.

If someone wants to kill another person, they are going to find a way to do it. No guns? Great, back to swords, knives, bows and arrows. Rocks, clubs, a candlestick, a lead pipe... Taking guns away will not stop violence. Most gun deaths are NOT accidental, either, so comparing them to accident rates is illogical.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Let me see if I can spell this out.

1. People with no guns are easy to control.
2. Those in power have no intention of giving up their guns.
3. Dictators are HUGE fans of gun control.

Do we need more?? Fine.

Uh, the issues I raised were 1) gun lethality, and 2) gun availability. This is off on a tangent and ignores the 30,000 annual death toll and the cost of medical care to those injured by guns.


[edit on 2/6/2009 by donwhite]

You raise some good points, donwhite, but I disagree with your conclusions to some degree.

Yes, the lethality rate for firearm accidents leading to death are high. The fundamental reason for the existence of firearms is to kill things. They are used legitimatly for other, sporting uses, such as trap and silhouette shooting, but the reason firearms were developed was to kill. So it is inevitable that firearm related accidents will have a high lethality rate.

As far as availability goes, no amount of prohibition will address this issue. For example, items such as coc aine and meth are prohibited, and evidently these can be obtained at will by anybody that wants them. If firearms are similarly prohibited, the same people that traffic drugs will just shove them to the side and fill up the space with guns. So prohibition is not the answer.

The real answer is more difficult. The US culture worships violence. This may be seen in the popularity of such things as Ultimate Fighting Championships, and in the reality that normal broadcast TV shows pretty extreme violence.

A culture that worships violence to the degree ours does will be violent. Be it with firearms, knives or clubs.

To reduce violence, we need to evolve the culture into one that does not worship violence. And that will take a while.

While skoalman maybe could have chosen a different phraseology, his (her?) point is correct. Firearms restrictions do not result in a reduction of crime. This has been backed up by a ton of evidence, for example the relative crime rates in cities of high and low firearm restriction.

There was also a series of studies done in the '70s, interviewing hard-core prisoners. Their biggest fear, by far, was to encounter an armed law-abiding citizen. Encountering police was a distant second. And the vast majority of firearm owners are extremely concientious law-abiding citizens.

And LadyGreenEyes is also correct. A well armed populace is the final defender of freedom. Such a populace is instrumental in repulsing invasion from without, and at stages of history such as we are in now, where external invasion is less likely, such a population is instrumental in repulsing attempted oppression from within.

So we need to not blame the tool for inappropriate firearm violence so much as what is to blame - the human behind the tool.

Gun control has never worked to reduce crime. It most likely never will.

I have one question Don. Why would anyone buy a firearm for two hundred dollars and turn around and sell it on the street for 25 or 50 dollars? That really seems unprofitable. Obviously any firearm sold on the street for such a small amount must have been obtained illegally, and there are already laws against that.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by donwhite


There is a good will behind your arguments Donwhite, but as others stated your conclusion is flawed and/or unacceptable for reasons already cited. However I would like propose that instead using punitive laws by taxing and regulating gun circulation would it not be better to put the focus on education?

A lot of accidents as far I know (don't quote me on numbers here) are due to the lack of knowledge on how to properly operate a gun or the improper storage of it. By putting the emphasis on HOW to properly use and store a gun instead of taxing and regulating them. I am sure the accident rate, which is your main issue, will decrease as a result of this.

What do you think?

reply to post by donwhite


While you may disagree with the phasing, my proposition remains correct. The real purpose of gun control is to take guns away from people not protect people.

You can quote any non-cited information you want, but the fact remains that few, if any proponents of gun control actually care about the safety of people, they simply don't like guns and don't want people to have them. They have an agenda being advanced under the guise of protecting the population.

To your availability statement: feel free to explain how placing tougher restrictions on those that legally obtain firearms does anything to curb firearms that are available on the street.

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Let me see if I can spell this out.

1. People with no guns are easy to control.
2. Those in power have no intention of giving up their guns.
3. Dictators are HUGE fans of gun control.

Do we need more?? Fine.

Uh, the issues I raised were 1) gun lethality, and 2) gun availability. This is off on a tangent and ignores the 30,000 annual death toll and the cost of medical care to those injured by guns.


[edit on 2/6/2009 by donwhite]

You can't toss out only part of the data, and expect people to just agree with you. Guns are SUPPOSED to be lethal. The availability of illegal guns will NEVER be affected by laws controlling the legal ownership of guns. Most gun deaths are by illegal guns, and such deaths decrease in areas where people can more freely carry legal guns. This is all verifiable fact. If you want less death from illegal guns, do something to keep the crooks in jail. Demand harsher sentencing, and laws that make it harder for the criminals to walk. Taking away the guns from private citizens isn't the answer.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Exactly!!!!

One of the most amazing things is this very phenomenon..

The same people that are "FOR" Gun Control, are often the same people "AGAINST" the war on drugs..

They can see the futility of controlling narcotics and how disastrous and ineffective it has been, yet they insist that controlling guns will work..

They also ignore the very statistics that go against what they propose.

Fact: Less gun control means lower crime rates

Fact: Criminals by their very nature do not obey the law. Restrict guns legally and who do you think will be the ones effected?

Fact: Automobiles and Obesity kill vastly more people each year then guns. No call to regulate Auto Ownership or the Possession of a Big Mac

It is the very nature of hypocrisy that the very cities with the most strict gun controls, have the highest gun violence.

Semper

In the country where most manufacturers are OBLIGATED to put "This is not a toy" warning on many products because of the stupidity of some, one wonders is the gun really for everyone, and how one decides who is to carry a gun ?

There are lots of individuals out there which do feel empowered if they own the weapon, which would not (most likely) engage in conflicts with others if they did not have a gun...

It is a great responsibility, not everyone is made out to have a gun, just like not everyone is made out to be a parent, despite the fact that they wish to be one.

So, yeah, how we decide who is responsible enough to have it ???

Perhaps if the Government spent half the money they waste trying to outlaw guns on education and training, the incidents of accidents and misuse would decrease... Substantially I would say...

The country is not what it used to be, that is a given and people are not growing up on farms anymore where their parents teach them proper handling and safety.

The recent emergence in Concealed Carry Laws and the training afforded through these programs is an excellent first step. Now there needs to be follow up training to ensure those that are carrying are doing so in a proper manner.

I have taught firearms in the Military, Police venue and to civilians for the past umpteen years and there are many more out there like me that are ready, willing and able to teach.

Perhaps the Government would be better off instead of restricting our Rights, helping us maintain and care for them?

Semper

[edit on 2/7/2009 by semperfortis]

Not coming from a country with a gun culture I find it difficult to understand the mentality behind owning guns.

my understanding though is that the majority of gun owners have them for protection and will probably never be used, with this in mind would it be better to put a tax on the bullets (heard this on an american comics show).

for the ordinary gun owner with no direct intention of using the gun it would be a one off purchase, it would cost the others a fortune so might make them think twice.

There is actually quite a tax on them already..

While many are owned for "Self Defense" and Defense of the Home, many are bought and used for pleasure..

I routinely shoot in competition (One of my great loves though not as good as I get older)

I shoot in "Cowboy" shoots and IPSC shoots as well as many police competitions..

I probably shoot several thousand rounds a year..

But along the lines you are talking about, I also collect and have numerous guns that have never been fired, some old antique guns and some that probably would not fire even if I wanted them too..

There are many aspects to the "Gun Culture" and it is not as finite or cut and dry as many would have you believe..

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Perhaps, 6 mandatory months in National Guard followed with a free license for life, would be a better approach. Bet those anti-government gun lovers would like that

That's how I learned how to use many weapons (including katyusha's, )

Seriously, though, I always wondered what is the actual connection between so many guns owned and one of the worst crime rates in the world in this country ?

It could be a mentality thing, but I really cannot point it out for sure

[edit on 7-2-2009 by 5thElement]

The crime rate is actually connected to many factors and Gun Ownership is but a small part..

Industrialization
Free Movement
Illegal Alien Issues
Poverty
Etc

And not necessarily in that order of course

There is documented evidence of several Counties and Municipalities that went from strict gun control to allowed concealed carry and experienced rapid and significant drops in violent crime as well as burglaries..

If it was possible to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms by criminals and or potential criminals, then only a fool would not support that. Of course that is impossible. Any gun regulation is only applicable to those willing to follow the law, eg.. Law abiding citizens and obviously they are not the problem.

While I support the Second Amendment, the issue is far deeper than that and much more complicated than what the Founding Fathers had to deal with. Violence is a part of society. While we all wish it were not so, the fact remains.
We do not have the ability currently, and possibly never will, to effectively eliminate violent crime. The only other alternative available is to ensure that "we" as citizens have the ability to protect ourselves from those "outside" the law. As those that do live outside the law are going to possess firearms, those that wish to protect themselves must do so as well..
Not exactly a pretty picture, but with less than 800K police officers, attempting to protect over 300 million people, the reality is just that.

I understand to some extent the emotional aspect of this issue. I have lost good friends and fellow comrades to violence and have felt some of the same feelings the anti-gun crowd feels. But in such matters, emotions must give way to common sense.

Semper

Edit to add:

I also support 100% mandatory service in the military after High School or college...

Best thing that ever happened to me...

S

[edit on 2/7/2009 by semperfortis]

Yep gun control is a myth but not the one you are talking about.

The myth is that liberals and/or Democrats are trying to take away your right to bear arms.

Its article of the constituition and it would take an amendment to the constituition to take away that right... and that is simply not about to happen.

There is nothing wrong with a waiting period nor is there anything wrong with back ground checks...the idea that you need an assult rifle is absurd...

any society that thinks it needs to be armed to the teeth to be safe is a seriously ill society.

Grover you are correct in that it is "Basically" non-partisan..

However it is undeniably a liberal issue..

I own assault rifles, several of them..

I am not absurd, or at least I do not consider myself to be.

I enjoy shooting them on occasion and compete with them several times throughout the year.

What is absurd is anyone telling me what I can and what I can not own. Where does anyone think they can possess the power to control anyone's life in that manner?

Waiting periods and Criminal Background checks are all wonderful ideas and I believe pretty much the law now in all states. At least the ones I have lived in.

Getting back to the assault weapons issue. That is really the huge difference in our ideology isn't it?

I don't feel like I have the right to tell you what you can or can not possess as long as you do so responsibly. You apparently feel the need to tell me what I can and what I can not possess.

You also know Grover that I am NOT a hard line Conservative, (Don't tell anyone though, I have a reputation to uphold) as I am completely against the war on drugs and for the legalization of several substances currently considered illegal.

But that falls in line with my ideology. I don't think I, or anyone, should be able to tell you, or anyone, they can not possess something they can grow in their back yard. So I am perfectly in line with my beliefs. Same thing with Assault Weapons.

I think they are beautiful and they hold a place of honor in my home, prominently on display and cared for routinely. I enjoy the accuracy I am capable of, (Even as old as I am ) and the comradeship I feel at the range with my friends when we shoot them.

It is all about freedom.

Telling me what I can and what I can not own, is nothing more than restricting my freedom so long as I do so responsibly.

Now if I do mess up and abuse the "RIGHT" to own them, absolutely take them from me. But as long as I am a Law Abiding citizen of this great Nation, who has the right to tell me what I can or can not own.

Semper

Originally posted by skoalman88
enacting tougher gun control laws only hurt those who legally obtain firearms since, after all, the criminal, by definition, does not comply with laws.

That's a silly thing to say. That's like saying laws against burglary are useless since criminals won't obey those laws .

And BTW - everyone is a criminal since everyone speeds and drives drunk on the highways.

Gun laws only apply to those that OBEY laws....criminals do not obey laws. Period.

www.liveleak.com...