On 12 Jan 2005 13:25:44 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:
wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 21:46:19 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:
snip
Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)
I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.
Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.
Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...
You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.
The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.
Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.
You'd think so wouldn't you?
I see where you're coming from Ian. However fortunately you're working
from some incorrect -- albeit extremely common -- assumptions.
Sigh, you don't, I see I'm not quite explaining myself.
Broadly speaking, there are two underlying schools of thought that
appear in the gun control discussion. One of them, call it Position A,
holds that everyone is likely to commit a violent act under the right
circumstances. The other school, call it Position B, holds that while
everyone may be theoretically capable of violence only a tiny minority
of the population are actually predisposed to commit violence. Both of
these positions lead to a series of testable hypotheses which are
relevant to a discussion of the dangers of guns.
Neither are quite what I'm arguing.
I suspect you'd concede that there is a seperate set of people, who
are predisposed to violence, but don't commit serious crime, through
socialisation, fear of punishment, fear of losing a physical attack,
lack of opportunity, or lack of need.
Actually the evidence is that the populations are pretty bipolar:
Those who are inclined to commit violent acts and those who aren't.
Note I said 'violence', not 'crimes.' Studies of criminal histories
show that most people who commit crimes with guns have histories --
usually long histories -- of violent anti-social acts.
For some of these, a gun will enable their crime by making them feel
safe enough, though some will be happy with a knife, club, or bare hands.
That's a variation of Position A. The so-called 'guns as enablers'
argument. Again, the examples I cited -- along with many others --
pretty well demonstrate that this is not so in the real world.
Your position is consistent with Position A, which is very popular,
especially in Britian and other countries where there is not a lot of
knowledge about, or experience with, firearms.
One of the inevitable conclusions from Position A is that the more
weapons, the more, and more serious, violence because the greater
weapons supply increases the chances that a weapon will be to hand
when someone wants to commit a violent act.
This is obviously correct - less legal availability of guns - less people
shot by legally held guns in crimes of passion.
That only holds if the limiting factor is the availability of firearms
-- position A -- in other words. It fails to explain why concealed
carry permit holders, for example, don't commit more crimes of
passion. In fact, in spite of their ready access to guns gun crimes,
of passion or otherwise, are just about non-existent among such permit
holders.
This is an argument for reducing gun ownership.
However, if there are any guns available illegally, and criminally intent
people can obtain them, then this argument is much weaker, as it only
eliminates a small fraction of gun crime.
As to the legislation I was referring initially to (banning .50 caliber)
it obviously reduces the (tiny) risk of a crime being committed by a legal
owner.
Under position B -- what you might all the 'bad guys' position -- it
would be expected to have no effect whatsoever. And its worth noting
that in the 40 years or so that 50 caliber rifles have been available
to the American public (counting the war-surplus Boys AT) no one has
apparently ever committed a crime with them.
It's a stupid bit of legislation, as an equal amount of time spent on
many other bits of possible legislation would probably save more than
the 1 life every 500 years (or whatever) this ban might.
Position B, OTOH, leads to the notion that the critical factor is the
nature of the individuals involved. Since violent people are a small
minority of the population, increasing the supply of weapons will have
little or no effect on the level of violence. The violent people will
get weapons and use them and the other people can be armed to the
teeth at all times and it won't increase the rate of violence. (In
fact it may well decrease it by making self-defense more effective.)
In a healthy society.
snip
True. The main reason the US has such a huge problem with violence is
that our criminal justice system is broken.
So while your position is logical, and quite popular, the evidence is
that it is wrong.
I seem to be having problems in that I was commenting on the specific
legislation, and a lot of people took it as my views on gun ownership.
I for one agree with your position on the 50 caliber rifle. However I
think that some of your premises are incorrect and that's what I was
commenting on.
snip
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
|