Essay talk:Gun control

Gun control is also the idea that 7 year old kids should be able to ride their bikes without getting caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting. Neither one of these things has a whole lot to do with the wisdom of a policy that goes far beyond these extreme scenarios.--MountainTiger 17:31, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, yeah, Mr. "I'm A Pacifist" Liberal Wimp??!?!? Well, when the One World Govermnent rolls in their nerve-gas-loaded tanks and sends commando teams to enslave us all with their Communist regime, that Saturday Night Special you COULD have bought MIGHT just have been the ONLY things that could have stopped them!!!!~!@11!!one! --Gulik 18:16, 29 July 2007 (CDT) </sarcasm>

You, as usual, are full of shit. (I meant the "author" of the essay, not the commentators)human^{be in} 00:35, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

dumb yeah, as I said...

"a 115 pound stay at home mother who lives in a rural area should have to fist fight a 205 pound rapist"

Yup, that pretty much sums it up! Gimme my 45 cal. under my pillow! By the way, I live in a "rural area". Never been robbed or raped. Don't even take the keys out of my cars, you dumbass. human^{be in} 01:35, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, most rapes, like most murders, are perpetrated by someone familiar to the victim. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:52, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

lol

THIS IS THE BEST ESSAY EVER WRITTEN. "Skirts are like essays, long enough to cover the topic, but still short enough to be interesting." GrandSoviet 22:36, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

HoG was RW's resident "master" of the one- or two-sentence essay. I believe there are others. human^{be in} 22:42, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

This is really one of the best RW essays I've ever seen. CriticalMass 22:49, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Slacktivism

I have to say that gun control is where I differ with most other liberals, but not for the reasons that you might be thinking as you read this sentence. I'm not a gun nut and don't even own a gun. I have fired guns and I do understand that rush and feeling of power that is actually at the heart of why gun nuts want to keep their guns. It's an inadequacy/compensation thing. I get it.

My feeling is that gun control isn't really needed if the underlying social problems that lead to crime are dealt with. Of course, since that is a far bigger challenge, it's better to just work on the gun control issue. That's why I think that the efforts of gun control advocates smacks of slacktivism. ^{— Unsigned, by: Edgerunner76 / talk / contribs}

Pretty much. Look at Switzerland, where every man is legally required to own an assault rifle (And I mean the real military definition which is a select fire rifle, not the fearmongering media definition) and their crime rate is very low. From what I've seen, it seems that legal ownership of guns really has no discernible bearing whatsoever on crime rate. GINNI index is a better barometer. ^{— Unsigned, by: 209.159.249.17 / talk / contribs}

Assault rifles aren't as easy to conceal as handguns might be. Swerving away from that statement, an interesting counterpoint to Switzerland is the United Kingdom (my home), where firearms are heavily controlled and gun crime is extremely rare, where six shootings in the black community of London made national headlines for weeks. Here in the United Kingdom, armed assault basically means "with a knife." If one suspects that somebody on the street might have, and be prepared to use, a knife, crossing the street is actually an effective defence. Brianetta 09:53, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, GUN crime is extremely rare, but the UK has a higher overall violent crime rate than the US does. Is it somehow better or more moral to use a knife to commit crime as opposed to a gun? I'm never going to argue that guns make a society safer, but the objects themselves don't make it any less safe, either. There are a million underlying factors to crime, and availability of guns isn't really one of them. After all, if no one has a gun, it makes it a little easier to commit crimes via knife or bat, doesn't it? Crossing the street isn't exactly much of a defense against 8 kids with bats and knives suddenly materializing out of a dark alley, and the UK's high violent crime rate is a testament to that. ^{— Unsigned, by: 63.175.189.20 / talk / contribs}

Yes, but you can outrun a knife. You can't outrun a bullet. And if you're packing a sixshooter and there's seven of them? You're toast. I mean, not only are you unarmed, but you just killed his six friends. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)^{Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence} 08:06, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I worked at a prison for years and years. I've seen firsthand that if someone has a knife and really wants to kill you, you would be dying before you even knew he had a knife. Likewise, if someone wanted your money, he's going to pull the knife suddenly and not give you a chance to run. Really though, this is all just an exercise in paranoia. No one is going to go around wearing a grounding cable on the off chance they get struck by lightning or a bee suit because they might run into killer bees, so I really don't see why people are so insistent on carrying a gun everywhere. Don't get me wrong. I like guns. I own several. I live on a farm, so I actually have a real use for them, but I really can't get why so many Americans have to rush out and buy a gun because a black person moved in next door. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

This is fine, great and all, BUT...killing someone with a gun is impersonal. Killing someone with a knife is not. Gang members (which account for most shootings in the US, do not want to kill on a personal level. England has a different beast altogether. Cgb07307 (talk)

"...killing someone with a gun is impersonal." That's news to me. I suppose it could be so, if you did it from a great distance with your eyes closed, but that's hardly likely to work well, is it? Sorry, couldn't let that one pass unremarked. I now return to staying out of gun control "discussions." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The tragic work of a Public High-School Student?

Wonder how long before the words 'Public High School' are associated with this tragedy over at you-know-where?

Oh. It only took a day. DogP 20:52, 6 December 2007 (EST)

AT LAST

Someone here is decent enough to expose the TRUTH! 12.75.66.202 20:59, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Completly Right

Gun control is bullshit.[[1]] ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 14:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. English? do you speak it, motherfucker? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP"? Great, let's make this an ethnic/religious issue as well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I might as well add this is the JPFO also brought "No Guns for Negroes" ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The documentary "No Guns for Negroes".

^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My attention span is too short for twenty minutes of political propaganda. Could somebody give me the executive summary?--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can read this base on facts from government website and study's.[2]

Bobm do you have an legitimate point beside labeling everything you see as "propaganda" ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But saying "read this" perhaps isn't the best argumentative technique. To be honest, I must admit that the political obsessions of foreign counties are sometimes a bit difficult to get a hold of though.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page 30:Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day.
• Page 28:When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed.
• Page 31:90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

Are you sure you really read it?And also does gun control have racial overtone of gun control.YES ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read any of it. My point is that if you want to make an argument then it's best to use your own words to clearly express the point being argued. In my opinion referring to youtube videos - which usually carry about as much weight as the opinion of average guy in the pub - is not the best way to make your case. Linking to other sites and saying "read this" is only little better as it is only one step beyond plagiarism. It seems to me that if you have a good case to make about about foreign political issues, then you should make it clearly in your own words.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What have gun control really do? It lead to crimes and violence with plenty of weight pointing that out. There nothing supporting gun control that is factual. ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullfuckingshit. How about this (very simple) equation for your (obviously) very simple mind: if you don't have a gun, you cannot commit a gun crime. That's a fact, numbnuts. Cgb07307 (talk)

The problem is...

In the abstract, the idea of a free populace maintaining a watchful disregard over their military and government with firearms works perfectly. In practise people are too stupid to control themselves, and hence the only body with the moral force to exercise physical force must control the free supply of weapons to the people. EdmundBurke (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay...

• The police support guns.
  • Page 37:
    • Fact: 94% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.
    • Fact: 65.8% believe there should be no gun rationing, such as ‘one gun per month
    • Fact: 97.9% of officers believe, that through illegal means, criminals are able to obtain any type of firearm.

What a world without guns look like.

• Page 37:
  • Fact:"Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns

       are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder
       rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being
       robbed."  
 

Okay you know that majority police support guns-right as well as how "successful" gun control are.Pretty Informative ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered to read it, but do they cite external sources? Professor Moriarty 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but like all proper studies they do citation leading to the FBI,Washington Post,and the Times. ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a world outside the United States 'Ghy'. I don't particularly care about how it has worked in the U.S. considering nearly every fourth person has some kind of personality disorder, and there is extreme inequality across the board. There is a history of gun ownership also, and I don't believe it is possible to equitably remove all the guns from private households there, even if that was the best solution. Gun crime is a rareity in Europe, so don't drag out the pyschotic U.S. please. EdmundBurke (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping to read some arguments. How the world would be a better place with more guns in it? Would Iraq be "better" if there were more guns? Would Afghanistan? Would anywhere be better if there were lots more guns? Logical answers not links please.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) And why not, considering that gun crime is most prevalent in the United States. Your cynical stereotypes of the United States aside, I think that a discussion of guns and US politics would be very interesting if it included more intelligent perspectives from Europeans in. Not that I'm saying your analysis of it is intelligent, but others might have a good outsiders' perspective. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Gun ownership (well hand gun ownership) is less common in Europe and so is gun crime. It could be argued that the lack of guns produces a lack of gun crime - but I accept that this could be over-simplistic. Perhaps in the same way that a lack of pit bills terriers corresponds to a lack of attacks by pit bulls, or a international lack of nuclear weapons corresponds top a lack of nuclear attacks.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BAN BULLETS!!! One month in jail + an absurd fine for every illegal bullet in possession. Guns don't often kill people. Bullets do. cgb07305 (talk)

I'm not sure what the post above is trying to say, but it seems to me that - if we're talking about intentionality - then people kill people. It seems to me to probable that a society which has more guns would make it easier to convert that intention into reality than a society which has less guns. And, wow, guess what? the (first world) society which has most guns has most gun deaths! What a coincidence!--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pragmatism, Bob. Physical means? The bullet is the object that does the killing. A gun is simply the means to deliver the bullet. The US does not have the highest rate of gun ownership in the first world, the country that does has almost no gun deaths. As alluded to earlier, guns in the US are viewed by a large chunk of their owners as toys. That, and the fact the US has gangs that remind me of Mogadishu in certain cities, is the reason there are so many gun deaths. You said yourself that it's people killing people... Cgb07307 (talk)

The problem pretty much boils down to the fact that the Americans needed guns in their earlier years; take for example the great push westwards, when individual families formed the rugged frontier between civilisation and wilderness. Families simply couldn't have existed in these conditions without use of their own firearms (And police institutions were primitive at this time, even in concentrated urban areas) Whereas the European countries were able to progressively ban guns to the stage where now they are only owned as heirlooms or hunting tools (With a few exceptions of course) because guns simply weren't necessary for day to day survival. I think American rednecks have a point in that banning guns in the US now would be madness, as the only people who would suffer would be decent, law abiding families, whilst guns would continue to proliferate amongst organised criminals. But this is only as a result of historical causes where guns where never properly faced on 100 years ago. Americans need to start the process of banning them now (With a gradual, long term policy of weaning people off of them, amnesty programmes, and culminating in the complete banning of its sale by shops, and then eventually resulting in a complete ban in its ownership except in special cases), and maybe their grandchildren will grow in a country relatively free from gun crime, like much of Europe. EdmundBurke (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EC. Ah. So people don't kill people? It's the guns and bullets which kill people? OK, fine. Lets reduce the guns and bullets then? Or do I misunderstand your point?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with widespread gun ownership is it ends up with those with the biggest and fastest guns shooting first. Guns are lethal at a distance so anyone who feels threatened has an incentive to shoot first and ask questions later. What the anti-gun control lobby like to overlook is that in societies where there is widespread gun-ownership like Switzerland (which is largely rifles and not handguns, so people are not walking round the street packing heat) there is not so much deprivation so people are less inclined to commit crimes. Where there is widespread poverty even with gun-control then that's when you get more violent crime. Mexico has gun control but where do most of the illegal guns come from? Also if you are being robbed is killing the robber really a civilised action? But it's not just guns, the same arguments could be applied to nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't Iran, North Korea, Cuba have nuclear weapons to defend themselves? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. It seems pretty obvious that if people or societies are attacked by people with weapons, and the people being attacked have access to weapons, then they will use these weapons to defend themselves if they are attacked by the same weapons.

Equally, it seems clear that if either the attackers or the attacked do not have access to weapons then the issue does not arise.

However, given that the US seems to have a particular issue with handgun deaths, it would seem that the problem resides with US society rather than with guns themselves.--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the "conclusion" of Bowling for Columbine. ħuman 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gun Facts PDF

Wow, people still cite that as a source?

Consider its structure. Rather than making arguments, it instead purports to dismiss various "myths" of its own composition. This is a tried-and-true method for writing arguments that can be easily defeated. The best advocate for gun control, of course, is not someone who opposes it. For example, take a look at the "myth" that heads the second section: Countries with strict gun control have less crime. Few actual advocates of gun control would make such an argument, because it is obviously false. Instead, they would point out that it is the method by which handguns are registered and accounted for that correlates strongly with violent crime. A hugely different argument, and a much more effective one.

This pamphlet is full of such chicanery. And then there's the sources. Let's take a look at one. We see the "fact" listed that “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” What is the source of this quote? Oh, I see, it's someone named "Colin Greenwood" who spoke at the "Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs." That sounds official and so it must... wait a second, are Radiohead band members making speeches at hearings really supposed to be evidence of this "fact"?

This nonsense is everywhere in the damn thing. Useless.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahah I just double-checked, and found out that it's even worse. It's a different Colin Greenwood who made that quote; this law enforcement expert's actual conclusions state: "Systems for licensing or controlling firearms are normally justified in terms of their effectiveness in reducing or controlling access to firearms by criminals or terrorists and by their influence on rates of homicide and crimes such as robbery." In other words, he says gun control is effective!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at some of the myths triumphantly debunked. Tom is right, it's full of straw men and non sequiturs.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)