Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

Rate this topic


Kate87

Recommended Posts

So gold also has become 10 times easier to find in the last century? Fascinating. With something whose value is that volatile, it would be crazy to base a currency on it...

Well ok... that clearly puts you at odds with the economic principles of Ayn Rand's character, John Galt. But hey, I'm glad that you're so completely contented with government controlled paper money... because I've never regretted choosing the path less travelled. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

I wonder how many unreported incidences where club or hammer wielding assailants were thwarted by gun bearing 'victims'.

Thirty seconds and one Wikipedia search later:

"In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5]"

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

Ergo, about 1% of gun deaths use a "rifle" (however that is defined, which given the numbers above must be quite narrowly).

Clearly if only 600 Americans a year were killed by guns, then we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

I wonder how many unreported incidences where club or hammer wielding assailants were thwarted by gun bearing 'victims'.

Excellent point... and add to that, over half of all gun deaths are suicides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ok... that clearly puts you at odds with the economic principles of Ayn Rand's character, John Galt. But hey, I'm glad that you're so completely contented with government controlled paper money... because I've never regretted choosing the path less travelled. :thumbsup:

John Galt and the rest of the gang smoked cigarettes too. They thought that was a great thing to do. Gold was no more a critical pillar of AS than cigarettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5]"

More on this: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Best to go to the source. That Fox News article was quite misleading, plus it's the 2011 statistics, not 2012 as the article seems to suggest to unwary readers. If anything, it just means rifles are less popular, while handguns are a lot more popular. Also, blunt objects are really easy to acquire. I mean, lots of people have a hammer or a baseball bat even. The only useful point is that people shouldn't think rifles are inherently a great cause of violence, whatever rifles are considered. On the other hand, are weapons classified as rifles regulated more than handguns? I'm really asking - I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ergo, about 1% of gun deaths use a "rifle" (however that is defined, which given the numbers above must be quite narrowly).

Rifles are shoulder fired firearms with rifled barrels. The term isn't defined by the government or the UN, it's a common English word, like apple or tree. I wish I could find someone who doesn't know what "apple" means, have them give us a lecture on the orchard business. It would be a great way to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rifles are shoulder fired firearms with rifled barrels. The term isn't defined by the government or the UN, it's a common English word, like apple or tree. I wish I could find someone who doesn't know what "apple" means, have them give us a lecture on the orchard business. It would be a great way to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

Please don't be so pedantic. Terms *are* defined by a government when writing statistics. I'm sure Crow intuitively knows what a rifle is, but there are specifics of classification in order to write up statistics precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on this: http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

Best to go to the source. That Fox News article was quite misleading, plus it's the 2011 statistics, not 2012 as the article seems to suggest to unwary readers. If anything, it just means rifles are less popular, while handguns are a lot more popular. Also, blunt objects are really easy to acquire. I mean, lots of people have a hammer or a baseball bat even. The only useful point is that people shouldn't think rifles are inherently a great cause of violence, whatever rifles are considered. On the other hand, are weapons classified as rifles regulated more than handguns? I'm really asking - I don't know.

I live in New Jersey, last year I purchased a used .22 revolver. It took about 6 months to aquire the gun, after going through all the legal procedures they were quite extensive. I believe I coud have acquired a long gun in much shorter time, so I believe rifles as a class are less regulated from purely anecdotal experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rifles are shoulder fired firearms with rifled barrels. The term isn't defined by the government or the UN, it's a common English word, like apple or tree. I wish I could find someone who doesn't know what "apple" means, have them give us a lecture on the orchard business. It would be a great way to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

I know what a rifle is. I thought it odd that, as is the implication, 99% of gun deaths are caused by hand guns or shotguns.

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what a rifle is. I thought it odd that, as is the implication, 99% of gun deaths are caused by hand guns or shotguns.

So we should apply the same regulatory statutes to all guns as they apply currently to only rifles?( to control gun deaths i mean ) Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Binswanger has an article on gun-control on the Forbes site. Here are the first couple of paragraphs:

Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would deny Ayn Rand’s point that “the government is the means of placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.”

On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend themselves? What about people who aren’t ever going to fly into a rage and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn’t a few armed adults have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been spared? We don’t need statistical studies to know that banning guns from cities doesn’t stop criminals from getting them.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow

It seemed you were suggesting that 99% of gun deaths(which I presume you mean people killed with guns, not the death of guns) are attributed to hand guns and shotguns. I made the observation that in New Jersey it is easier to aquire a rifle than a handgun. Are less people killed with rifles because of the regulation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow

It seemed you were suggesting that 99% of gun deaths(which I presume you mean people killed with guns, not the death of guns) are attributed to hand guns and shotguns. I made the observation that in New Jersey it is easier to aquire a rifle than a handgun. Are less people killed with rifles because of the regulation?

I don't know what the real stats are, I was just pointing out what the above report implied that based on the numbers it presented. As I said, that number seems far too low to me, which lead me to question where that study got its numbers. Surely most crimes are probably committed with a handgun because of the convenience etc. but I would be amazed if it's 99%.

Now, as to your question, I don't know the answer although the obvious assumption would be that handguns are far more practical in committed crimes, are probably much more abundant overall, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, are weapons classified as rifles regulated more than handguns? I'm really asking - I don't know.

It depends a little bit on how you define, "regulated," but the short answer is no. Handguns are more regulated.

Automatic weapons have been effectively banned for your average person since the National Firearms Act of 1934. This includes "real" assault (selective fire) weapons, machine guns, submachine guns (machine pistols), etc. A person can receive special permission to own a machine gun from the US Treasury Department (<-- If you can figure out why that makes sense, please tell me). But the average person is SOL when it comes to getting such permission.

The federal government requires a NICS background check for conventional firearms. Blackpowder firearms, including relatively high caliber cap and ball revolvers, aren't even considered firearms and can therefore be shipped directly to your home. Conventional firearms are divided into two types; long guns and handguns. Anything that uses larger than .50 caliber cartridges is considered a "destructive device" and is not legal for sale or ownership.

Long guns are basically rifles and shotguns. Depending on what you're looking at, the minimum barrel length is 16" or 18", with a total overall length of somewhere around 24" (I'm working from memory). Modifying the barrel or stock to reduce overall length below these benchmarks is illegal. Long guns can be purchased by passing a NICS background check. The process shouldn't take more than 15 minutes.

Hand guns include revolvers, derringers, and semi-automatic pistols. They can theoretically have any barrel length, but that would kind of defeat the purpose. Some of these weapons, like the Taurus Judge or the Magnum Research BFR can fire .410 gauge shotgun shells. The only federal regulation that makes these guns harder to get is the 48 hour waiting period. A federally licensed dealer typically notifies the NICS people on behalf of the buyer, the buyer waits 48 hours, comes back to the dealer who calls NICS again. If everything checks out, the buyer has one or more new handguns.

State regulations complicate the issue. California, for example, has its own Clintonesque "assault" weapons ban that, among other things, limits magazine capacity to ten rounds. They also have more stringent requirements on removable rifle magazines, and a ten day waiting period for a handgun. Some states require licenses for the purchase of a handgun. The biggest host of regulations seem to govern concealed carry, which ranges from "constitution carry" states that allow any law abiding adult to carry a concealed weapon, to more strict states that require training and the whimsical approval of local authorities before a license is given.

Regulations on removable magazines and the barrel/overall lengths of long guns might lead someone to believe they are more regulated, but if the relevant context is access, then handguns are harder to get. This NICS stuff goes out the window when you buy from an individual whose main source of income is not arms dealing. Lots of these guys set up booths at gun shows, and you can legally get a gun from them without a background check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, in your comments about gold prices you talk past the rest of us. Gold is relatively (supremely?) stable as a form of currency. The reason being that devaluing gold or any other precious metal requires lowering its utility (fat chance) or rapidly mining remaining reserves (a costly enterprise). Devaluing a given contemporary currency is much easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Binswanger article:

The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household.

I find this to be an obviously false statement.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, in your comments about gold prices you talk past the rest of us. Gold is relatively (supremely?) stable as a form of currency. The reason being that devaluing gold or any other precious metal requires lowering its utility (fat chance) or rapidly mining remaining reserves (a costly enterprise). Devaluing a given contemporary currency is much easier.

How do you explain, then, that you can buy roughly the same car now with 1/5th the amount of gold you could about 12 years ago? Did building cars (along with the thousands and thousands of discrete commodities and units of work than go into building a modern automobile) suddenly get 5 times easier to get/build?

I am old enough to remember 12 years ago. I don't remember rent being 1/5th what it is today. I don't remember new cars costing $6,000. I don't remember the price of a cinema ticket costing $3. I don't remember a night on the town costing only $50. I actually remember everything costing about what it costs now, give or take. There are more official stats of course, and they are in complete accordance with this.

Yes, devaluing a currency is relatively easy. So is overvaluing a commodity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't. In fact, people in my home are safer because I own guns. As a child, I was safer because my father owned guns.

That is your opinion. The facts are otherwise - http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

As an example in your case, how do you know someone in your home won't become accidentally drunk, and in a perfect storm of unfortunate incidents, you leave the key to your gun cabinet out on show.... The risk of this may be small, but the chances of you using your gun to successfully thwart a criminal is even less. Therefore you have exposed the people in your home to a net risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, when we get drunk in my home, we do it on purpose.

The situation you describe is the result of a series of inappropriate behaviors that my family and friends do not engage in. As for the study, I did not analyze their methods with regard to control group selection, so I can't approve or disapprove of their findings. However, the study seems to gather info from proxies they deem to be comparable to homes that have murders. I'm confident that my home would not engage in the behaviors that would make us suitable proxies; alcoholism, illicit drug use, domestic violence, etc. Also, the study gives no data about burglary, sexual assault and the like - only homicides. When I talk about keeping my family safe, I mean to keep us safe from everything, not just murder.

Edit: I'm currently re-reading the study to see if I missed something. If anyone thinks they've missed my point because of the confusion a mistake of mine may have caused, please give the word and I'll clarify.

Crow, this gold discussion is incredibly off-topic. So the last I'll say is of course commodities can be mis-valued, but if you think gold-as-currency is less stable than what moralist called, "fiat currency," you're out of your mind. Because I'm more prone to think of you as chippy rather than insane, I get the impression that you're arguing this point for the sake of argument.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...