Gun control: the results are in?

[Undecided]

You claim that if gun control laws result in a decrease in gun murders and coresponding increase in other types of murders,

I haven’t acquiesced to that logic, I just haven’t confronted it. Why do you so conviently ignore this:

I don’t care about the murder rate; the gun rate has gone up 30%! So it seems that the reverse logic is coming around, more and more people are using guns to kill then other “weapons” so lack of gun laws prove me correct. You are confused… gun rate, and murder rate are not synonymous

I am still waiting for an answer, and I will not be an idiot here I will fully state that my argument along with yours is a major logical fallacy being Post Hoc. So get a new argument, I know I have.

If you think that it's just as bad to be murdered with weapons other than guns, then how has the situation improved after the murders switch from guns to other weapons?

Firstly the amount of pain is not in question here, that is subjective and to one person he’d rather be stabbed then shot, or visa versa so that argument is based on nothing by subjective sensations and biases. Secondly with a gun you have no means of defense, he shots and you don’t have a Kevlar vest your one dead man, you cannot stop a bullet. A fist, sure you have a better then a fighting chance, with a knife you can outrun your potential killer, and you can defend yourself. A gun unto its own serves on purpose to kill, and it does it with “deadly” efficiency like it should. If we are to use your subjective, and unprovable measure, then all metallic instruments and even hands should be discarded. It’s nonsense.

I'll agree that if you only care about reducing gun murders but don't care about the total murder rate, then gun control can work.

Post Hoc, try again.

But when evaluating gun control laws, the only thing that most people really care about is whether or not it makes society any safer. Since gun control doesn't make society any safer, it seems rather pointless to me.

I have to see any proof of this argument then a logical fallacy based argument. Please try, or shhhhhhh….

 

[Nasor]

I don’t care about the murder rate; the gun rate has gone up 30%! So it seems that the reverse logic is coming around, more and more people are using guns to kill then other “weapons” so lack of gun laws prove me correct. You are confused… gun rate, and murder rate are not synonymous

Yes, that's the difference. I only care about whether the gun control laws make me safer or not. You seem to only care about whether or not gun control laws reduce gun murders specifically, without regard for whether or not you are actually any safer in general.

Firstly the amount of pain is not in question here, that is subjective and to one person he’d rather be stabbed then shot, or visa versa so that argument is based on nothing by subjective sensations and biases.

I agree.

Secondly with a gun you have no means of defense, he shots and you don’t have a Kevlar vest your one dead man, you cannot stop a bullet. A fist, sure you have a better then a fighting chance, with a knife you can outrun your potential killer, and you can defend yourself.

Here you seem to be falling back again to making theoretical arguments for why people would be safer with gun control.

A gun unto its own serves on purpose to kill, and it does it with “deadly” efficiency like it should. If we are to use your subjective, and unprovable measure, then all metallic instruments and even hands should be discarded. It’s nonsense.

What is the "subjective, unprovable measure" that you think I'm using? I'm just looking at the murder rates before and after gun control laws, which are objective and quantifyable figures. Whether or not people are statistically more or less likely to be killed after gun control laws are enacted isn't really open to debate; it's just a matter of looking at the crime rates before and after.

 

[Undecided]

Yes, that's the difference. I only care about whether the gun control laws make me safer or not. You seem to only care about whether or not gun control laws reduce gun murders specifically, without regard for whether or not you are actually any safer in general.

Are you still engaging in the illogical argument as before that getting rid of guns must increase the use (in the same proportion) the use of other weapons. Merely saying X happens doesn’t mean it does, your argument has been invalidated, thank you and come again. Gun laws work, period.

 

[Nasor]

Are you still engaging in the illogical argument as before that getting rid of guns must increase the use (in the same proportion) the use of other weapons. Merely saying X happens doesn’t mean it does, your argument has been invalidated, thank you and come again. Gun laws work, period.

Of course I realize that simply saying that rates of murders with other weapons increases to compensate for gun control laws doesn't make it true. That's why I posted actual crime figures for before and after the gun control laws. You can check them yourself if you think I made them up.

How has my argument been invalidated? My argument is that when guns are taken away, criminals usually just switch to other weapons and the murder rate remains the same. This isn't open to debate - just look at the crime figures for any country before and after gun control laws. You will see that even as the rate of gun murder goes down, the rate of other types of murder go up, resulting in no net improvement in safety.

 

[Undecided]

That's why I posted actual crime figures for before and after the gun control laws. You can check them yourself if you think I made them up.

I don’t care about those figures because they don’t conclude definitely that a tie exists. According to the British government the rise in crime is a result of socio-economic problems. Murder is a state of mind, not a state of being so I am not buying that argument. Also you imply without any reason that universally that a decrease in gun crime will be made up by non-gun crime in all states, that’s folly.

How has my argument been invalidated?

Because you have not shown a tie btwn the two other then a clear assumption of the facts.

My argument is that when guns are taken away, criminals usually just switch to other weapons and the murder rate remains the same.

The reasons behind the rise are up to debate not the consequence.

You will see that even as the rate of gun murder goes down, the rate of other types of murder go up, resulting in no net improvement in safety.

Even assuming that is true, it does take a deadly weapon off the street does it not? How about gun related crimes? You are looking at the situation from a subjective basis, and thus your argument has no validity, you are putting your own mores into a law that doesn’t state anything else but to decrease the amount of gun crime, and amount of guns on the streets. So far its been successful…so try again. Boy I love ad naus...

 

[Nasor]

If the rate of non-gun murders doesn't increase to compenstate for gun control laws, then why haven't we seen one single country in which the murder rate goes down after gun control laws are enacted? I admit that it isn't proof, but it's certainly strong evidence. I mean, maybe it's just a coincidence that the rate of non-gun murders always goes up to compensate for the drop in gun murders after gun control laws are passed, but that seems a little unlikely when you consider the long list of countries in which it has happened.

Even assuming that is true, it does take a deadly weapon off the street does it not? How about gun related crimes?

Why is it good to take a deadly weapon off the streets and reduce the level of gun crime? Most people would say that it's a good thing because it makes society safer. All evidence, however, seems to indicate that it's doesn't.

You are looking at the situation from a subjective basis, and thus your argument has no validity

I'm looking at it from the objective, quantifyable basis of "does it make people safer?"

 

[Undecided]

If the rate of non-gun murders doesn't increase to compenstate for gun control laws, then why haven't we seen one single country in which the murder rate goes down after gun control laws are enacted? I admit that it isn't proof, but it's certainly strong evidence.

There was strong evidence to suggest that the Sun revolved around the Earth as well, just look up. Sometimes the obvious isn’t the entire truth.

I mean, maybe it's just a coincidence that the rate of non-gun murders always goes up to compensate for the drop in gun murders after gun control laws are passed, but that seems a little unlikely.

Coincidence is not an argument, according to the economist article that Stokes was so gracious to provide didn’t mention a word, not an utterance about British gun laws in the increase in the level of crime in the UK. Using your logic, crime just happens because it can.

Why is it good to take a deadly weapon off the streets and reduce the level of gun crime? Most people would say that it's a good thing because it makes society safer. All evidence, however, seems to indicate that it's doesn't.

Evidence suggests that I am much less likely to be shot, that to me = safer.

I'm looking at it from the objective, quantifyable basis of "does it make people safer?"

As did the USSR when it was making its GOSPLAN’s how well did that work? Quality mein friend beats quantity every time. Your argument is not objective, the utterances of “is it better” crappola from before destroyed any legitimacy you had with the term objective.

 

[Nasor]

Evidence suggests that I am much less likely to be shot, that to me = safer.

Less likely to be shot? Yes. Less likely to be murdered? No.

 

[Undecided]

Less likely to be shot? Yes. Less likely to be murdered? No.

I never asserted that A (banning guns) lead to B (increase in crime with other weapons) that's anti-intellectual, fallacious, and unsubstantiated. You have, and you have yet to actually prove it. Again you are under the premise that crime happens because it can, otherwise your logic makes no sense.

 

[Nasor]

Less likely to be shot? Yes. Less likely to be murdered? No.

I never asserted that A (banning guns) lead to B (increase in crime with other weapons) that's anti-intellectual, fallacious, and unsubstantiated. You have, and you have yet to actually prove it. Again you are under the premise that crime happens because it can, otherwise your logic makes no sense.

I think that crime happens because of social, economic, and cultural factors.

While I haven't *proven* that banning guns actually causes an increase in crimes with other weapons, the corelation between a ban of guns and an increase in crime with other weapons has been demonstrated in virtually every country that has tried gun control laws. While corelation doesn't imply causation, it's still very strong evidence.

 

[Undecided]

I think that crime happens because of social, economic, and cultural factors.

Obviously not, you equated that crime happens because of some imaginary force. You stated that murder rates go up in tandem with the fall of gun crime, which seems to indicate to me and even to yourself that machinations are what make people commit murder, and crime not socio-economic factors.

While corelation doesn't imply causation, it's still very strong evidence.

Of what? Explain…

 

[Nasor]

I'll spell this all out as clearly as I can, in the hopes that you will understand what I'm trying to say.

I think that crime is caused by social and economic factors. I don't think that lack of access to guns prevents people who wish to commit crimes (such as murder) from doing so. While it is true that guns are deadly weapons, there is no shortage of deadly weapons in our society, including common things like scissors or baseball bats. So, while a gun might be the obvious first choice for someone wants to commit a murder, inability to get a gun doesn't present a serious problem for a criminal or deter them from committing crimes. Thus, restricting guns will not make society any safer; people will simply switch to other weapons when they wish to commit crimes.

So, what evidence do I have to support my contention? Well, as I have pointed out, when countries try to enact gun control laws the murder rate stays the same even though gun murders decrease. This indicates that lack of access to guns is not a problem/deterrent for people who wish to commit murder. Like I said, it's possible that it's simply a coincidence that the rate of non-gun murders always goes up almost exactly in proportion to the decrease in the rate of gun murders after gun control laws are enacted, but this seems very unlikely. It's possible that in every single instance of non-gun murders going up after gun control laws are enacted that the non-gun murders would have gone up anyway, but it's interesting that they always seem to go up by exactly the amount needed to compensate for the decrease in gun murders, leaving the overall murder rate the same.

 

[Undecided]

I'll spell this all out as clearly as I can, in the hopes that you will understand what I'm trying to say.

Doesn’t mean your stance has become more logical…

I think that crime is caused by social and economic factors. I don't think that lack of access to guns prevents people who wish to commit crimes (such as murder) from doing so.

So then you agree that the increase in usage of other instruments is a result of socio-economic factors? So you agree that getting rid of guns work, because it wasn’t the absence of guns that caused the spike.

While it is true that guns are deadly weapons, there is no shortage of deadly weapons in our society, including common things like scissors or baseball bats.

Are those things designed from the outset to kill me? Let me put to you like this, why ban anthrax if it is merely a powder like my fertilizer? The same concept here with guns, one serves no purpose but to kill and cause damage. It’s called Telos in Aristotelian ethics, the meaning of something’s existence.

So, while a gun might be the obvious first choice for someone wants to commit a murder, inability to get a gun doesn't present a serious problem for a criminal or deter them from committing crimes.

Granted but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get rid of guns, but again you are merely looking at one aspect of the use of guns. There is the more important aspect of intimidation which I referred to before, robberies would decrease, convenience store crimes, etc. There is so much more you are conviently ignoring.

Thus, restricting guns will not make society any safer; people will simply switch to other weapons when they wish to commit crimes.

This is based on? Again baseless accusation based on nothing else but mere conjecture.

Well, as I have pointed out, when countries try to enact gun control laws the murder rate stays the same even though gun murders decrease. This indicates that lack of access to guns is not a problem/deterrent for people who wish to commit murder.

That argument shows you are nothing more then falling into the trap of conjecture, nice try. When you get a real argument, that is based on logics, or facts, or something approaching that we will talk. Right now you are merely wasting your time, and mine. Not only are you confused, you are unable to prove anything you are saying.

 

[Nasor]

So then you agree that the increase in usage of other instruments is a result of socio-economic factors? So you agree that getting rid of guns work, because it wasn’t the absence of guns that caused the spike.

Getting rid of guns is what causes the spike. When guns are taken away people switch to different weapons, because their first choice wasn't available. Much like if I want to go to the store but my car isn't working, I walk rather than drive. My car breaking down isn't what caused me to want to go to the store, but it is what caused me to walk rather than drive.

So, while a gun might be the obvious first choice for someone wants to commit a murder, inability to get a gun doesn't present a serious problem for a criminal or deter them from committing crimes.

Granted but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get rid of guns, but again you are merely looking at one aspect of the use of guns. There is the more important aspect of intimidation which I referred to before, robberies would decrease, convenience store crimes, etc. There is so much more you are conviently ignoring.

Ok, please post some crime statistics indicating that robberies etc. decrease when guns are taken away.

Thus, restricting guns will not make society any safer; people will simply switch to other weapons when they wish to commit crimes.

This is based on? Again baseless accusation based on nothing else but mere conjecture.

I feel that the fact that non-gun murders always go up after guns are taken away is strong evidence that people switch to different weapons when guns are taken away. When performing a specific action (like taking away guns) always leads to the same specific event occuring (like non-gun murders going up) it's pretty good evidence that performing the action somehow causes the event. Not proof, of course, but pretty good evidence.

Let's try this; since you don't believe that gun control laws cause people to switch to different weapons, what's your explanation for the fact that whenever a country bans guns other types of murders go up? You really think it's just a coincidence?

 

[Persol]

So then you agree that the increase in usage of other instruments is a result of socio-economic factors? So you agree that getting rid of guns work, because it wasn’t the absence of guns that caused the spike.

Getting rid of guns works only if your goal is to get rid of guns. It does not make life better in an measurable way.

Are those things designed from the outset to kill me?

No, and it doesn't really matter.. they do just are capable of just as much.

Let me put to you like this, why ban anthrax if it is merely a powder like my fertilizer?

Anthrax is capable of more than a gun and a baseball bat. There are levels of threat to everything. You are setting your level of accdeptable threat below guns, without any demonstratale reason.

There is the more important aspect of intimidation which I referred to before, robberies would decrease, convenience store crimes, etc.

No, they wouldn't. Clerks and homeowners also use guns for intimidation towards the goal of self-preservation.

That argument shows you are nothing more then falling into the trap of conjecture, nice try. When you get a real argument, that is based on logics, or facts, or something approaching that we will talk.

What? Country A outlaws guns. The crime/murder rate of country A does not decrease. No other factors are shown that would account for an increase. Why do you think outlawing guns was effective? Are you any safer because of it... no. So what exactly was the point?

 

[Undecided]

Getting rid of guns is what causes the spike.

I don’t think you are getting the concept that your argument smells worse then a babies diaper. It has nothing to support it other then conjecture.

Ok, please post some crime statistics indicating that robberies etc. decrease when guns are taken away.

I don’t have the stats on me, and I never asserted it as a proven truth like you are trying to with the supposed correlation btwn guns and crime.

Not proof, of course, but pretty good evidence.

In essence your argument is that, the Catholic Church was right to imprisoning Galileo. Think about it.

Let's try this; since you don't believe that gun control laws cause people to switch to different weapons, what's your explanation for the fact that whenever a country bans guns other types of murders go up?

According to what I read, it has more to do with socio-economic conditions. I recognize that objects don’t cause crime, mentality does. You seem to believe that there is coordinated effort by the population to increase their murders to make up the difference. That’s really quite idiotic, also how long did it take for that “make up” to happen?

You really think it's just a coincidence?

I’m not an idiot, it is obviously much more.

 

[Nasor]

Getting rid of guns works only if your goal is to get rid of guns. It does not make life better in an measurable way.

Thank you. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who understood this. People here (well, mainly just Undecided) seem to think that getting rid of guns is somehow good for its own sake, rather than because of the effects on people's safety or quality of life.

 

[Undecided]

Getting rid of guns works only if your goal is to get rid of guns. It does not make life better in an measurable way.

No the only goal noted in these laws to my knowledge is they want guns off the street and a corresponding decrease in gun related crime. It seemed to have worked, you are the ones who are adding nonsense into the conversation about overall rates.

No, and it doesn't really matter.. they do just are capable of just as much.

It does matter, because unlike a gun whose design only allows for one use. The other machinations allow for positive uses, they are capable of pain but they aren’t built for that.

Anthrax is capable of more than a gun and a baseball bat. There are levels of threat to everything. You are setting your level of accdeptable threat below guns, without any demonstratale reason.

Anthrax is surely more dangerous then my fertilizer, sure it is. A gun is more dangerous then my spoon, but why do we ban Anthrax for public consumption rather then a gun, they both can kill the same amount of people, Anthrax is notoriously hard to spread. I don’t see the difference btwn 5 bullets and 5 Anthrax viruses. 5 easily preventable deaths.

No, they wouldn't. Clerks and homeowners also use guns for intimidation towards the goal of self-preservation.

As a response, again you are confusing cause + effect.

What? Country A outlaws guns. The crime/murder rate of country A does not decrease. No other factors are shown that would account for an increase.

Socio-economic was the analyses done by the British as the cause.

Why do you think outlawing guns was effective? Are you any safer because of it... no. So what exactly was the point?

Give it time, we aren’t on cocaine here. Be patient; let the laws stay for a while. Eventually wife beating decreased.

 

[Nasor]

Undecided, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more. I'm convinced that I've presented a good case for my contention, and that no amount of reasoned argument will ever get you to change your mind. Frankly, arguing with you isn't worth my time any more.

I'm sure you'll interpret this as proof that your arguments are unassailable and an admission on my part that my arguments are invalid, but I'll leave that up to the judgement of the other readers of this thread. Assuming anyone else is still even paying attention here.

 

[Persol]

As a response, again you are confusing cause + effect.

You seem to have this habit of bringing responses up, but then when someone points out that you are incorrect because you didn't consider X you simply say 'you are confused'. Nice try. Care to backup your statement of

here is the more important aspect of intimidation which I referred to before, robberies would decrease, convenience store crimes, etc.

Oddly you seem to think that criminals having guns is intimidation... but clerks/homeowners having guns is not. Again, you are confusing cause + effect.