Gun Control for Dummies

gregster's picture
Submitted by gregster on Fri, 2013-01-18 10:55


Gov't portrayal of gun owners and private property owners

Sandi's picture

"Consider the extent to which the federal government has gone, during the past four years, to brand conservatives, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun owners, and in general believers in property rights, as not merely racist and stupid (the usual mantra), but rather as angry, "bitter," and positively unhinged. These are not mere insinuations; government representatives, spokesmen, and apologists have been saying such things with increasing directness and frequency since 2008"

Mock Disaster Training Exercise in Scioto County

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio (WSAZ) -- A dead science teacher, weapons of mass destruction, first responders in hazmat suits and the Ohio Army National Guard all near the Municipal Stadium in Portsmouth, Thursday. There's no cause for alarm -- this is just a drill!

The mock disaster training exercise is being done with Scioto County first responders and the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit.

"It's the reality of the world we live in," says Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin. "Don't forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared."

The make-believe scenario is timely. Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government's interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community.

and I'll thank you...

Damien Grant's picture

not to describe my views on Islam as Devil's advocacy on behalf of Islam's fundamentalists. That is a wilful misrepresentation of my position.

Actually, it is worse. It is a lie, a tactic you need to resort to because your attempt to win that argument by reason fell so woefully short so you paint me as an apologist for Jihad. It is an easy way to try and win a debate. And it works in this sheep farm, I'll grant you, but getting the cheap seats to clap is a simple vaudeville trick of no academic merit.

And when it comes to being on the side of thugs, you want to allow the thugs to gain access to weapons, including the Jihadists. I want to stop them. Whose on the side of thugs again?

Saying something over and over and over and over and over, does not make it true.

got me thinking

Damien Grant's picture

Australian deathsAustralian deaths

 

so I looked a little harder. Australian deaths had been falling before the 1997 law changes, so the research cannot say if the continued decline was due to the changes or not.

I graphed the data. You can see that the death rates were falling before 1997 and continued to do so after.

So, the Australian gun laws had little or no influence on falling murder rates, or contributed to their decline. Either way, the Australian gun laws almost certaintly did not lead to an increase in the murder rate, (unless the rate would have been even lower without the changes)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

Damien

gregster's picture

"The gun laws were more about controlling the type of guns" They took gun collectors' items, with the threat of jail.

"In any event, the facts do not support your view that tighter gun laws lead to more gun violence either."

Tighter gun laws put guns in the hands of criminals (and the government), and I believe tip the balance to allow criminals to practise the newly-coined "home invasion." If the facts did not support my case, it remains a citizen's right to bear arms for the purpose of life preservation. If I may be generous in my appraisal; your apparent Devil's advocacy from the perspective of Islam's fundamentalists, and alignment with murdering thugs is consistent. Every time you sacrifice law abiding citizens' rights, and boost the chances of lowlifes.

yes, well...

Damien Grant's picture

Sometimes the facts do not fit with my pre-conceived views. I do find this annoying.

None the less, I am reasonably familiar with the Australian gun laws, and although they took a lot of guns out of circulation, Australia had a very low level of gun violence to start with and already had a fairly restrictive gun laws operating in the different states. Not, it must be said, in Tasmania.

The gun laws were more about controlling the type of guns, not who could own them, that was already well regulated by most states.

In any event, the facts do not support your view that tighter gun laws lead to more gun violence either.

"This place needs a shearer."

gregster's picture

I like to take you one step at a time Damien, in keeping with your crow epistemology. You've diligently progressed from more guns, more crime to "indeterminate." Good man.

confirmation bias

Damien Grant's picture

yes.

I suffer from it.

Damien

Callum McPetrie's picture

"Murdered Britons 722

Murdered Americans 14,748

You are still lying to yourself Greg. The statistics are clear."

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

FACTS

Damien Grant's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates

 

The facts, in Australia, are indeterminate. The the law has been in force for fifteen years, and I would have thought that separating wider cultural trends from gun laws hard, and Australia has fairly restrictive gun laws before the 1997 gun laws.

They did not go from a free-wheeling gun culture as exists in the US to a more restrictive regime, they went from a conservative regime to a more conservative regime.

 

Woolly thinking. It must stop.

gregster's picture

Watch that video, and explain what appears at 1:50

Obama Playing Chicken

gregster's picture

"Consider the extent to which the federal government has gone, during the past four years, to brand conservatives, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun owners, and in general believers in property rights, as not merely racist and stupid (the usual mantra), but rather as angry, "bitter," and positively unhinged. These are not mere insinuations; government representatives, spokesmen, and apologists have been saying such things with increasing directness and frequency since 2008. A "study" funded by DHS expressly lists people who are "reverent of individual liberty" or "suspicious of centralized federal authority," among the common potential terror threats (p. 9). Obama himself, during his 2008 campaign, suggested in no uncertain terms that "clinging" to a Bible and/or a gun -- i.e., believing in God or the right to bear arms -- is a clear symptom of serious psychological problems, and equivalent to racism."

American Thinker

Woolly thinking

Damien Grant's picture

Murdered Britons 722

Murdered Americans 14,748

You are still lying to yourself Greg. The statistics are clear.

Facts do not lie; proponents of removing gun control laws do. I know why. The problem is simple.

Option A) Removing gun controls prevents the Non-initiation of force by the state against gun-owners. Good

But; will lead to the Initiation force by some of those gun owners against others, leading to dead people. Bad.

Option B) Gun control laws will impose the initiation of force by the state against prospective gun owners. Bad.

But will result in a lower death toll. Good.

No matter what policy is adopted, there will be an initiation of force. Either people who want to own guns will be prevented from doing so, or some people will suffer the initiation of force by some gun owners. So, you must make a decision between two imperfect options, both of which involve a violation of the Non-initiation of force principle.

There is no libertarian sweet-spot, unless you can deny reality, and pretend that removing gun laws will not result in an increase in the murder rate. This involves a degree of self-deception that is truly stunning, a level of mental creativity usually reserved to those claiming a religious experience, but it is self-delusion.

Woolly thinking. It must stop.

More evidence for Dummies

gregster's picture

DeSalvo: "Law-abiding citizens with guns reduce crime. It is statistically irrefutable." H/T Glenn Jameson via Scott DeSalvo

i think

Damien Grant's picture

I know what my principles are. Sometimes I choose to do things that are not consistent with those principles. It is a considered decision. It is not a contradiction.

Anyway, I do not seek to validate my thinking by checking what someone else thinks, even Ayn Rand, because to seek guidance in all things from someone else is to abdicate one’s mind, and I understand that such a thing is wrong.

You say that

Sandi's picture

"Something is good or bad on its merits" You mean "the same merits that are in conflict with your principles?"

"To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." - Ayn Rand

of course

Damien Grant's picture

That picture was not created by Reisman.

The picture is moronic. The idea of putting Madison, a great president but also the slave owning creator of the fore-runner of the fed, shows a crushing lack of understanding of history, as does the stupidity of putting Obama in the same pantheon as Stalin and Hitler.

It shows the creator of the picture to be a complete ignoramus. An airhead, actually.

If Hitler opposed daylight saving, does this make daylight saving good? Something is good or bad on its merits, not because of those celebrities (dead or alive) who can be found on either side of the debate.

Summed up very nicely

Sandi's picture

I thought this is another worthy contribution also summed up rather magnificently by Mr George Reisman.


"American citizens need to impose gun control ON THEIR government"
- George Reisman

laughed

Damien Grant's picture

Glad that I made you laugh.

I disagree about principles. I can believe that I should be faithful, that it is an important principle, but decide to cheat anyway, knowing that it is morally wrong.

If I thought paying a bribe is wrong in principle, I can think this, and still pay a bribe.

It might make me a hypocrite, but it does not mean I do not have principles, just that I do not live by them.

This is a perfect case where I am thinking in principles, and everyone else, save Binswanger, is not.

If you were true to your principles, you would acknowledge the truth about the effect of liberal gun laws, or do what Binswanger does and declare that the effects do not matter, but you do not.

You claim that liberal gun laws are good because of the effect of those gun laws, not because liberal gun laws are right in principle despite the cost.

When it comes to gun laws, I believe that restrictive gun laws make my life better. I accept that this is a violation of some basic principles that I believe in, so I am being hypocritical.

To thine own self be true, Greg.

If you have not read the

gregster's picture

If you have not read the Binswanger piece on the other thread you should. He made a principled argument for the abolition of gun laws without having to resort to sophistry to state his position. It was a good, reasoned argument, and I found it compelling.
Not enough to change my views, but enough to make me understand that my views supporting gun laws are in conflict with my other libertarian-leaning views. Sometimes my views are in conflict with my principles. So be it.

Yes, I told you that "you were unable to think in principles" once somewhere here. You cried "Bullshit."

"Not enough to change my views." I laughed there.

If your views are sometimes in conflict with your principles intentionally then you can't claim to have principles. This would explain your inconsistency, and emotional subjectivism.

Stop lying to yourselves

Damien Grant's picture

The argument that liberal gun control would lead to a lower death rate is total bullshit. The evidence is black and white in the murder rate of different OECD nations with their different gun laws.

You are lying to yourselves by continuing this stupid fact-defying nonsense.

If you have not read the Binswanger piece on the other thread you should. He made a principled argument for the abolition of gun laws without having to resort to sophistry to state his position. It was a good, reasoned argument, and I found it compelling.

Not enough to change my views, but enough to make me understand that my views supporting gun laws are in conflict with my other libertarian-leaning views. (Sometimes my views are in conflict with my principles. So be it. Best to understand that and know that you are sacrificing a principle and know why you are doing it.)

You can try and make an argument that the US is different, because their history of liberal gun laws has led to a proliferation of guns and their decentralised mental health and criminal registers makes a uniform gun control system very difficult at a federal level, which is the only level that would work.

But these are not arguments grounded in principle. If socialised medicine was proved to be more efficient and effective than a free market one, (and clearly in some cases it is) would we abandon our core belief system because the state system was more efficient?

No. Because the principles behind libertarian thought are not about what is efficient, but what is right.

Binswanger: "With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral"

He is right. I at least understand that I am amoral because I make the analysis and decide accordingly, but understand that if you want liberal gun laws there will be more dead. This does not mean you are wrong, it means that you place the value of individual choice and liberty higher than others. You see the world through individuals and not the collective.

Another example of the woolly thinking that goes on here. This place needs a shearer.

Kyle

gregster's picture

Sure could. Think of all the other governmental shackles.

Kyrel

gregster's picture

Rifles like this brandished here by dunce DemocRat Joe Morrissey are being used as a convenient scapegoat. The target is the US Constitution. By Anti-Americans - The enemies within - Liberals, in the modern derogatory sense of the word. Meaning censorious politically correct imbeciles lumbering oversized guilt complexes for merely being recovering capitalists in the steadily-declining most successful country in history. Reality cannot be forever resisted. If they succeed in tearing up the tattered constitution, as is boringly usual their regulatory moves will have the opposite effect to that intended. They will set up the US government ripe for takeover. I can easily imagine the military taking charge of the remnants.

They shouldn't ban these rifles. Citizens need to be able to compete with criminals. A weapons recall would be a criminal's, and a liberal's, dream. Note those regions who've published digital maps of gun owners' locations to give the criminals a head start.

Also, "assault" is a loaded term in "assault rifle." An anti-concept.

As well...

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski's picture

You could replace the criminal with a government bureaucrat and it would fit just as well.

Tyranny?

Robert's picture

What if any citizen, regardless of their skill level or IQ, could manufacture a firearm (or any component thereof) in 9 hours after purchasing about $100 of raw materials and a plan off the internet?

Well that is what this guy is aiming at.

Yes there is some anarcho-sophist crap at the end. But the technology is real and almost readily affordable..

Unregistered, untraceable, cheap, widespread and practically unsupressable. Download your gun blueprints today before they make it illegal.

Food for Thought

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Nice cartoon, Greg!

Here's the simple truth regarding gun "control"/tyranny: Banning assault rifles and large ammunition clips may indeed cut down on the occasional spectacular massacres (assuming these monsters don't turn to bombs, fires, etc. which can kill far more). But these wildly-publicized slaughterfests make up far less than one percent of the murders in America in any given year (e.g. 27 murdered on December, 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut vs. 16,000 murdered per year in the US during all of 2012). And this proposed gov't coercion and rights-violation would leave the other 315 million Americans significantly disarmed against standard criminals, and thus would almost certainly result in far more murders per year -- not less. And don't forget that the police and military would also be less restrained and intimidated by the general public, and thus be far more likely to act criminally and work against liberty and justice. Plus a large part of individual freedom, responsibility, hope, and happiness will also have died.

Is increasing gun tyranny really worth it? Sad

Hhaha

Jules Troy's picture

A picture says a thousand words.  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.