Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Mountain Man]

So, we're talking about scale here. If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths. The only reason why there are so many more ladder deaths than gun deaths is because ladders are used far more often. Ladders aren't inherently dangerous. Guns are. The government has banned other dangerous things other than guns, like certain refrigerants, lawn darts, in a lot of places you can't own spring operated switchblades, certain fireworks, live grenades, certain wild animals, plutonium, etc. Now all of these things combined probably produce less deaths a year than ladders, but some communities someplace found it sensible to enact laws preventing the ownership of these things because they felt that they were more dangerous than the common ladder. Even if you disagree with that any or all of these things should be illegal, the reasoning isn't unsound.

"If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths."

A self-serving assumption. The fact is, it is well-documented that high rates of gun ownership do not necessarily correspond to high rates of gun violence.

But then you go on to argue that using the "It's for your own good" argument can be used as justification to ban anything, so you end up supporting my position.

[Terraceth]

Actually, it isn't. Relative firepower very likely would have made a difference in how the Founding Fathers treated and worded the Second Amendment. While they did have more than mere muskets they were not dealing with the level of killing power that a modern firearm brings to the table - and they very likely would have been more precise had they envisioned the mess the Second would make in years to come when firearms became deadlier and more user friendly.

That might be true. But they didn't do that, so I don't think it's particularly relevant.

[Adrift]

"If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths."

A self-serving assumption.

That's an odd thing to say. I could counter with, "well you're assumption that we wouldn't see far more gun deaths is self-serving" I think it makes common sense, though. Guns are far more dangerous than ladders, so it makes sense that there would be many more deaths if guns were used as often as ladders.

The fact is, it is well-documented that high rates of gun ownership do not necessarily correspond to high rates of gun violence.

Sure, if they're mostly locked up in a safe, or only used in the controlled environment of the range. Those times that they're not is the times we've got to look out for. Are you suggesting that guns aren't dangerous?

But then you go on to argue that using the "It's for your own good" argument can be used as justification to ban anything, so you end up supporting my position.

No. I think its a good argument for inherently dangerous things that most of us don't necessarily need to own like sticks of plutonium, live hand grenades, M-80s, super-powered lasers, and the like.

[Zymologist]

No. I think its a good argument for inherently dangerous things that most of us don't necessarily need to own like sticks of plutonium, live hand grenades, M-80s, super-powered lasers, and the like.

Speak for yourself!

[Mountain Man]

Yes, so? That's a really poor counter argument - the idea of abolition is to reduce the availability to the point that very few can manage to obtain firearms. That some nut will go imitate Simon Bar Sinister doesn't really tell us that we shouldn't reduce availability this way. If that were the best counter argument for against abolition, I'd support abolition. We should keep as many toys away from Simon as possible.


The reason that mass shootings don't make the Six O'Clock Report every night is that gun control actually does work. Perfection isn't a realistic goal - nor a good counter argument.

Mass shootings happen because psychopaths know that their victims are unlikely to be armed. This, too, is the result of gun control laws that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to buy and carry guns.

[Mountain Man]

My understanding is that there is little-to-no evidence that fewer guns means less violent crime or murder (people will commit their crimes & murders in some other way, as MM seemed to be arguing). Some studies show a correlation in the opposite direction. If the goal is to reduce violent crime and/or murder, then surely it is a good counter-argument to argue that reducing guns is ineffective at achieving the goal. (I doubt MM was only complaining about imperfection--that it would not stop all violent crime.)

Exactly.

[Mountain Man]

Sure, if they're mostly locked up in a safe, or only used in the controlled environment of the range. Those times that they're not is the times we've got to look out for. Are you suggesting that guns aren't dangerous?

Like anything potentially dangerous, if handled safely and legally then there's no problem. That applies to anything potentially dangerous like knives, or cars...


...or ladders.

[Jedidiah]

Hey! I'm not an ilk!

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but you are in no way shape of form an ilk of JimL. You do not seem to depend on stupid statements to make your points.

[Jedidiah]

Yes, so? That's a really poor counter argument - the idea of abolition is to reduce the availability to the point that very few can manage to obtain firearms. That some nut will go imitate Simon Bar Sinister doesn't really tell us that we shouldn't reduce availability this way. If that were the best counter argument for against abolition, I'd support abolition. We should keep as many toys away from Simon as possible.


The reason that mass shootings don't make the Six O'Clock Report every night is that gun control actually does work. Perfection isn't a realistic goal - nor a good counter argument.

Worked real well with prohibition didn't it.

[Jedidiah]

Actually, it isn't. Relative firepower very likely would have made a difference in how the Founding Fathers treated and worded the Second Amendment. While they did have more than mere muskets they were not dealing with the level of killing power that a modern firearm brings to the table - and they very likely would have been more precise had they envisioned the mess the Second would make in years to come when firearms became deadlier and more user friendly.

Also, the Court didn't take the individualistic view of the Second that gun proponents take until fairly late - although to be fair, the Second didn't have a lot of precedent. Still, in the earliest cases - those closest to the time of ratification - the Court was very much of the view that gun ownership pertained primarily to the need for a ready militia, and not that it pertained to the individual's particular rights.

So yeah, the Second was written with a very different level of fire power in view and it certainly did affect how the Second was worded. I suspect had automatic weapons been available the Second would have either been omitted or a heck of a lot longer.

Speculation and wishful thinking.

[Jedidiah]

The government has banned other dangerous things other than guns, like certain refrigerants, lawn darts, in a lot of places you can't own spring operated switchblades, certain fireworks, live grenades, certain wild animals, plutonium, etc. Now all of these things combined probably produce less deaths a year than ladders, but some communities someplace found it sensible to enact laws preventing the ownership of these things because they felt that they were more dangerous than the common ladder. Even if you disagree with that any or all of these things should be illegal, the reasoning isn't unsound.

None of these banned items are protected by the Constitution.

[Jedidiah]

I believe, without data, that the real cause of the increase in violence we think we see is population density. You see the same sort of thing when you put too many rats too close together. We need to ban cities of over 10,000 people.

[Mountain Man]

People might abuse their right to keep and bear arms, so we should revoke the 2nd Amendment.

And people might abuse their right to free speech, so we should revoke the 1st Amendment, too.

[Joel]

Well, we're in our cars for far more hours a year than the time spent handling knives, so that's hardly surprising.

I doubt anyone has ever surveyed the two together, but this seems like an apples and oranges argument as well. Far more people use ladders in their everyday than go to shooting ranges, and shooting ranges are incredibly controlled environments. The only apt comparison might be some sort of ladder range, where people were offered safety equipment and authorized experts on hand for proper ladder climbing assistance, but I don't think those exist in the States.

Probably, but again, you're in your car for far more hours than you are at the range, and you're in a very controlled environment at the range (or so you'd hope).

When referring to being in cars, I meant per amount of usage (time or miles or some such). My understanding is that when adjusted for amount of usage, being on the road is one of the riskiest things people commonly do.

Gun usage at a range is a common usage of guns, so it would be unreasonable to discount it when evaluating the riskiness of average gun use.

And that the risk is affected by the range being a controlled environment only reinforces my point. The risk per use isn't inherent to the object. If, for another example, everyone in school had lots of gun safety and marksmanship training, then gun usage would be up, but gun accidents would go down. Likely the risk from common gun usages like hunting and range shooting, would go down.

Your claim was :

"If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths. The only reason why there are so many more ladder deaths than gun deaths is because ladders are used far more often. Ladders aren't inherently dangerous. Guns are."

So in my example of gun training in school, usage would go up but risk per usage would go down, and it is not obvious that gun deaths would increase.

The riskiness of guns (or ladders) per usage is affected by more than just its inherent properties. It may be the case that people when using guns typically seek more training and take greater precautions and seek out more controlled environments than people in an average ladder use. Gun use per usage may, in practice, be less risky than ladder use per usage, despite their inherent properties. And whether that is true in any given time and place might vary due to many factors.

[Joel]

Relative firepower very likely would have made a difference in how the Founding Fathers treated and worded the Second Amendment.

How would you would know that? As a counter-argument, I note that a stated reason for the 2nd Amendment is the militia, and Article 1 Section 8 indicates that among the purposes of the militia are to "repel Invasions", which includes potentially fighting foreign militaries. And presumably they were aware that military technology had been developing and would likely continue to develop, and expected the people to keep themselves adequately armed for that possibility, into the future.