In Response to "Debate Time"
May 09 2007
This post is in rebuttal to an argument posted by Sarah Yeldell on her website, onto which I stumbled a few days ago. Her words are in italics.
While I didn't to go into detail with this argument, having only commented briefly on her site, I feel I probably should, for she seemed to misinterpret my first comment. Also, I did it to prove a point, that often, people place responsibility into the government's hands that it is simply ill-equipped or inefficient at doing, if it can at all. Every time something bad happens in the world, the people want the great judge to preside over all and change things so that bad things won't happen again when the government simply can't change fundamentally flawed human behavior. Instead, we have created a government that places unreasonable, expensive expectations that stifle creativity in free markets and intrude into people's personal lives, cutting off their freedom for the "good" of all—or better yet, in reality, the good of the few elite. In the end, this kind of thinking is ignorant idealism in a world where bad things happen and where life simply isn't fair.One other point I'd like to make before I start is that statistics are only as good as the conclusions you draw from them. I can selectively choose the statistics I want to prove my point, but I refuse. I also refuse to see only one side of a percentage to make a glib judgment call with far-reaching effects that I may not see at the time. You must see that your own perspective greatly influences any statistic you use.
When it comes to guns, I find myself firmly against American civilians owning and possessing firearms.
AKA I want the government to legislate away gun ownership so that we are forced to rely on them even more for things we need and end up paying more money than we should for it.
I guess I have ask, "And then what?" Do you not believe serious changes would have to be made, such as additional police? You have to see beyond to the ramifications of such a decision.Furthermore, why can't they?
It's unjust to regulate all of America on the problems of a few,
yet according to your own statistics and words, that's what you want to do.
I'm sure someone who has defended themselves with a firearm would disagree.
Does your father believe in gun ownership rights? If so, why? If not, why not?"My gun is for self-defense."
In my experience, this is the most common argument made for owning a gun. Self-defense sounds fairly reasonable (and oh so satisfying), and sometimes it even happens.
Not only that, but self-defense is a realistic possibility.The other most common argument for owning a gun is that the founding fathers believed in it enough to write it in the Constitution.
According to the US Department of Justice, between 1987 and 1992, an average of 22,000 victims (including police officers) per year defended themselves against a criminal who also had a firearm. Another 61,000 per year defended themselves against offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. That's 83,000 people per year who successfully or unsuccessfully used their gun in an attempt defend themselves, their family, and/or their property. (Stats)
In crimes that were reported. Also, it's helpful to note that USDOJ BJS started to completely redesign its methodology in 1992, but it claims to have adjusted for the figures before that time for the new methodology. Also, I've found other sources that disagree with
those numbers. In 1994, the USPOF conducted a survey in which it found that 44 million Americans owned guns (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt). It also concluded that defensive gun uses were hard to calculate and that the numbers it received were more than likely wrong due to contradictions with other evidence (its study calculated 1.5 million DGUs per year, an improbable number compared to the amount of actual crime).
By whom? The NRA? The USDOJ? I mean, who's doing the estimating and how? Do they all own them legally? How many of them committed a felony and were still able to purchase the gun?
So, by the USDOJ statistics, only 0.1% or so of gun owners have actually employed their firearm for defense.
Never mind the prevention of crime possibly caused by gun ownership or the knowledge thereof. Never mind the numerous places where guns are banned so that, even if a legal person wanted to use one in self-defense, they probably couldn't. Never mind that firearm-related crime experienced all-time lows between 1993 and 2005 (from the same site) for some unknown reason (possibly because USDOJ actually started crunching numbers correctly after 1992). Finally, never
mind that, in 1992, approximately 50 out of every 1,000 people were the victims of a violent crime, crimes that could have been prevented if the victim had had a gun.
Another consideration is, who is being hurt most by gun ownership?
You mean another biased consideration. You never intended to explore the advantages.
I think you added the wrong numbers. According to the site, the number of homicide deaths by guns between 1999 and 2001 is actually 33,570, much different from the number you gave. Also, the number of suicides in that same period is 50,054. I'm thinking you added more years than just 1999 to 2001, for the whole chart spans 1991 to 2001. The number of total homicides during that period is approximately 52,500 (averaging 7 per 100,000 per year with a population of 250 million). So total, the number of gun owners who have used their guns for homicide successfully in that period of time is close to 0.07% (from your quoted number), which is smaller than that percentage of people who used their guns for defense from 1987 to 1992. In other words, your argument's prepotency is being nullified. Additionally, it's really not a correct procedure to compare statistics from 1987 to 1992 to ones from 1999 to 2001, unless you assume the 0.1% is consistent for a decade.
In that same time period, 196,113 people committed suicide using a firearm. People possessing guns were killing themselves more than they were killing other people. This, of course, doesn't include accidental deaths. (Stats)Again, you have the wrong number for the time period, and accidental deaths by firearms adds very little to 50,054; in fact, the number of accidental deaths by firearms from 1999 to 2001 is 2,042, 0.003% of total gun owners. Number of suicides comprises 0.06% of gun owners. Either way, from 1999 to 2001, more people killed other people than people killed themselves with a firearm. According to WHO (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf), the number of suicides in 2000 was about 26,000. According to the USDOJ site, the number of those caused by firearms was 16,586, which is about 2/3 of the total number, assuming both sources' numbers are congruent.While it remains true that the majority of homicides and suicides in this country occur via firearm, none of these statistics proves one thing one way or the other in the issue of whether to ban guns. There are simply too many other variables to consider.
For instance, how many crimes were perpetrated by handgun-carry permit holders with their firearm actually involved? How many crimes involving firearms period also involved someone who obtained illegally or outside the process of state gun control laws? What effect has the price of guns (about $400+ per gun) had on crime: in other words, has the market not curbed much of the crime by cost alone, especially in poorer areas where crime is more prevalent?
Also, your bias prevents you from seeing that the far majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly, and I would say it's a fair bet to say the majority of those who use them irresponsibly obtained them through illegitimate means.
You also act as if suicide is somehow expedited by guns, when suicide is a completely different matter altogether. The solution to mental illness includes medical changes—better, cheaper health and less bureaucracy (doctor shifts) and less humiliation—as well as cultural changes—holding those who propagate paranoia accountable and helping people recognize warning signs. Guns are often chosen because they are quick and painless, but banning guns will not solve suicide across the board.
To be sure, I'll fight anyone who ever threatens me or mine (I'm no pacifist), but the likelihood of me ever needing to use a gun is low.
The likelihood of getting to wherever it is stored (whether loaded or unloaded) in time to any good is lower.
With the numerous laws prohibiting people's carrying guns, how can you say this with a straight face? This is a chicken and egg argument (Which came first?) gun control or gun ban advocates pose as a detractor, when they themselves caused it, not the presence of guns in society. They caused responsible people to have to store away their own guns: you can't use this particular issue to argue your case, when your case wanted such gun control laws in the beginning. In this sense, gun control advocates are begging the question: they are arguing that a circumstance they create is proof enough to further their conclusion. Responsible people aren't going to risk trying to break the law so that, if you enforce laws to ban guns from certain areas, the only ones listening are the responsible people!The possible pros don't come close to outweighing the cons.
You haven't come close to making a justifiably thorough side-by-side comparison!
"If you outlaw guns, the only people who will have them will be the
criminals!"
Maybe, but currently most violence is carried out without a weapon. Between 1993 and 2001, 65.9% of non-lethal violence and 26.6 % of lethal violence was carried out without a weapon of any kind. By comparison, only 9.5% of non-lethal and 3.8% of lethal violence was carried out using a gun. That's 5,863,750 crimes committed without a weapon of any sort, as compared to 846,950 committed by gun-wielding criminals.
If guns were only available illegally, it's hard to believe that number would go up. (Stats)
That's the problem. You don't realize the impact a law will have until it comes around full circle. The knowledge that no good citizen has a gun may galvanize would-be criminals. You have no proof to justify your last statement in this paragraph. You could take, for instance, the impact of marijuana on society as well as since the beginning of its illegalization and the "war on drugs," as well as the impact on its price, accessibility, and potency. Or you could just use prohibition. I doubt either will suit your purpose.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
I couldn't agree more. But I don't understand fighting for the right for people to kill other people faster and more efficiently.
When was the last time someone burst into an office or a school and bludgeoned thirty people to death in ten minutes with a baseball bat?
This example's beside the point.
Outlawing guns might not do a lot for one-on-one violence, but it would significantly reduce the number of casualties in crowd situations. Today, if you want to kill a lot of people, you go home, get your guns, drive down to the mall/office/school and open fire.
How many massacres occur in a year? How many "crowd situations" ever occur? How many crowd situations occurred in places where guns are prohibited?
Without guns, people would still find ways to kill large numbers of other people, but why give them the option of a firearm?
Wow, that's amazing: you just pointed out your argument's own flaw. They would find other ways of killing people, such as a bomb (or several), which aren't that difficult to make to destroy a bus filled with people.Also, firearms exist: criminals have had that option since their invention and refinement. The only people we would take away the option from are the law-abiding citizen.
Why make it easy for them?
We aren't. You are, for reasons I've already reiterated.
"Guns are fun!"
Yes, they are. I think it has to do with our reverence of violence. There's just something about firing a gun that makes you feel good. But there are a lot of fun activities out there that don't involve pretending to KILL things. Maybe we should focus on those instead?
Keeping that in mind, why don't we ban guns from television, or video games, or even from speech?
"Hunting is fun!"
You know I worry about a culture where we feel compelled to watch things die. I worry about a culture where killing things is thought to be fun. Hunting isn't a necessity, it's a hobby, and really, killing things should never be a hobby.
It's not a necessity…anymore. How people use their guns legally is really none of your concern. I hate cats, but I'm not going prohibit people from owning them.
"You don't need to worry about the law-abiding citizens."
My friend killed his wife, their friend, and then himself using his legally purchased firearm, a gun he bought for self-defense. When he bought his gun, he wasn't crazy, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't someone the system would have caught.
What about 9/11? And quite frankly this isn't even a crowd situation: he probably could've done the same amount of damage with something else. Again, banning guns isn't the solution to mental illness.
The idea that gun control works is laughable, because how can you know when someone might be pushed past their breaking point?
And here your personal experience totally sways your argument, especially since so few gun owners are "pushed past their breaking point," statistically.
How can you know whether or not your law-abiding citizen (or their child) will do something unlawful? There is no way the law can do anything but react after someone commits a crime.
How would that change after you ban guns?
There's no legal gun violence prevention aside from banning guns entirely. (Article)
What does that even mean?
I know outlawing guns isn't an option, but I'm not sure why that is. It seems obvious that the pros of guns are far outweighed by the cons.
Been there, argued that….
So why, as a nation, are we so enamored with them? The sole purpose of a firearm is to kill something. Why do we want to keep them?
It's necessary that we have a few for an organized militia, even you believe that. It's freedom that civilians have them. Since when has the nation been enamored with them? According to that USPOF study, the number of gun owners was on the decline in 1994. I don't see us being enamored, unless you want censor out guns from entertainment.
Is it because, as a culture, we LIKE death? Is it because, as a country, we want the option of killing our neighbors open to us? Why?
More pseudo-philosophical nonsense. This is about freedom to defend on your terms.
Under scrutiny, your arguments just don't add up to the same conclusion when you change your presuppositions on the matter. It's unfair and unjust to hold society as a whole accountable for the misdeeds of a few.
Another question I have is how would someone go about enforcing a total gun ban? What would be the penalty for gun possession, or gun sale?
Sarah Yeldell
May 10 2007
