HAWK-HKG11
New member
I decided to start a new thread for better discussion. My "partially" anti-gun friend in the other post actually read some parts of that article you recommended and also all of the responses here on TFL and he feels compelled enough by its position that he wrote a rebuttal against a section which he wants me to post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Response to "Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns" Article, found here:
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun2.htm#sn23
I must say, it is a very well written paper by Kopel and Little and nearly directly addresses the ultimate viewpoint that I have: disarmament in order to lower violent crime. I disagree with Pro-Gun advocates in that I do believe that the lack of guns in private hands will reduce violent crime. I do not agree with extreme anti-Gun advocates in that I do not believe that guns cause violence, that guns are "evil." Having said that, the only parts of this document which apply to my argument are in the "Guns and Public Safety" section. Let me clarify. My theory is just that: a theory. Something in the subjective mindscape of personal views and opinions. I THINK that disarmament will reduce crime based on the evidence that I've seen. So, given this, I don't have to really provide, in detail, how it can be implemented. I know that it cannot be implemented, due to the nature and number of those who disagree with me. And of course, that is the beauty of freedom of thought. I can think one thing, and others can just as vehemently believe another. I don't hold any personal vendetta against those who wish to arm themselves, I will not wave my arms frantically in the air and shout "Think of the children!" I merely feel differently from the Pro-Gun community. For this reason, though I personally feel that firearms are not beneficiary to crime reduction, I will likely never lobby or politically push for new laws to change it. In short, I will not force others to adopt my views. Meanwhile, this also frees me from actually needing to draw a blueprint for disarmament. I don't have to have a tangible plan on how to carry it out. I have this vague idea that it is actually impossible to do realistically in this society. So, many of the issues that Kopel and Little state (Constitutional law - which I am certainly not qualified to challenge or even speak of, and the difficulties of implementation - noncompliance and resistance) do not hold any bearing to my argument. Let me thus start with Part II, Section IV: Guns and Public Safety.
A) Kopel argues that crime in Rural areas is low, without consideration for the extremely disproportionate population density in those areas while stressing good points like trauma centers which benefit his argument.
B) "The facts suggest that cultural or socioeconomic variables figure much more heavily into the violence phenomenon than does access to firearms."
Which ignores that these same cultural and socioeconomic variables will only stack onto the lethality of firearms. That is, if we were a disarmed nation of psychopaths, we'd be a lot less deadly than if we all had Glocks.
C) He brings Japan into the picture now, but argues incorrectly about its political system. While the national culture and ideology of Japan may be one of the most conformist on Earth, it hardly springs from the political system. Rather, the nature of the Japanese Diet springs from its national culture, the result of a thousand years of a strict disciplinary moral code, which has only increased in severity due to its defeat and subsequent shame in World War 2. Kopel also ignores the duality of Japanese culture: that is, the one side which is the professional and conformist face, the other that belies the Japanese' cry for individuality through wonton decadence. It is that duality and the transition from one side to another which would seemingly cause massive sociological problems leading to violent crime in Japan, but this has only manifested itself in extremely rare incidents. The moral and social issues of Japan are too complex to simply dismiss as being "anti-individualistic."
D) "Indeed, in most of the countries touted by American gun prohibitionists as models, armed-violence rates were far lower at the turn of the century, when the countries had almost no gun laws, than at the end of this century."
This of course negates the simple fact that private gun ownership and availability were at near zero at this point. If memory serves, the Nambu model A was the first Japanese pistol to be allowed to be offered commercially a few years after the turn of the century, and even then, for social and economic reasons, the vast majority of them were bought by Army and Naval officers for use in their duties.
E) "The Communitarian Network's hypothesis is that individuals (gun owners) must sacrifice their (supposed) rights for the greater good of public safety. [344] A significant body of evidence suggests, however, that the Communitarian Network may have the facts backwards: gun ownership may make a positive impact on public safety and may benefit all persons, not just gun owners. In other words, one of the communitarian objectives--enhancement of public safety through responsible actions that benefit the entire community, not just an individual--is already in place through the mechanism of individual gun ownership."
A very important argument here... but such a claim is ultimately futile in that a significant body of evidence can be collected, and HAS been collected that supports either anti or pro-gun sides. I have no doubt that many of these statistics have been skewed completely out of proportion, with facts intentionally left out. Things like the ridiculous "You're 40-something times likely to shoot yourself/a family member than an armed intruder." Now, we all know that's bull, with the balance tipped by ridiculous things like suicides and all that stuff that shouldn't be part of the equation. But it only serves to question the validity of the use of "statistics" by any party, regardless of political viewpoint.
F) "... the Orlando Police Department sponsored firearms safety training for women [...] witnessed an 88% drop in the number of rapes in Orlando."
Very convincing arguments on the rape cases in Orlando, though it does do quite a bit of speculation in the area of the subsequent increase after the initial introduction of the women's gun training course. However, it seems quite air-tight and well researched otherwise, very effective and damning to my argument
, especially the psychological factors it lists.
G) "In 1982, the Atlanta exurb of Kennesaw passed an ordinance--in symbolic response to the handgun ban of Morton Grove, Illinois--requiring all residents (with certain exceptions, including conscientious *506 objectors) to keep firearms in their homes. [357] In the seven months following enactment of the ordinance there were only five burglaries, compared to forty-five in the same period the preceding year, constituting an 89% decrease in residential burglary. [358] Kleck and Bordua maintain that "the publicized passage of the ordinance may have served to remind potential burglars in the area of the fact of widespread gun ownership, thereby heightening their perception of the risks of burglary." [359]"
That last section is actually not quite so good for this argument. It seems to indicate that the keeping of personal firearms only seems to reduce crime if it is known beforehand that the intended victims are armed. And so, this is a moot point. One cannot force everyone to own a gun on a national level, and without a significant increase in gun ownership, there cannot be an actual decrease in crime in general. Just as the message was sent to rapists in Orlando, the same message must be sent to all criminals everywhere to prevent crimes. Impossible to do unless an arming of a very sizable number of the population is achieved, especially in high-crime areas.
H) "'Gun ownership among prospective victims may well have as large a crime-inhibiting effect as the crime-generating effects of gun possession among prospective criminals . . . . [T]he two effects may roughly cancel each other out [...] The failure to fully acknowledge this reality,' Kleck concluded, 'can lead to grave errors in devising public policy to minimize violence through gun control.' [367] If Kleck is correct, and if attempts to implement drastic gun control policies, such as domestic disarmament, are ever successful, the result will likely only harm America's communities."
An interesting interpretation. I don't see how "the result will likely only harm America's communities" was reached, seeing as how Kleck quoted a mere three lines above that the two factors cancel each other out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Response to "Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns" Article, found here:
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun2.htm#sn23
I must say, it is a very well written paper by Kopel and Little and nearly directly addresses the ultimate viewpoint that I have: disarmament in order to lower violent crime. I disagree with Pro-Gun advocates in that I do believe that the lack of guns in private hands will reduce violent crime. I do not agree with extreme anti-Gun advocates in that I do not believe that guns cause violence, that guns are "evil." Having said that, the only parts of this document which apply to my argument are in the "Guns and Public Safety" section. Let me clarify. My theory is just that: a theory. Something in the subjective mindscape of personal views and opinions. I THINK that disarmament will reduce crime based on the evidence that I've seen. So, given this, I don't have to really provide, in detail, how it can be implemented. I know that it cannot be implemented, due to the nature and number of those who disagree with me. And of course, that is the beauty of freedom of thought. I can think one thing, and others can just as vehemently believe another. I don't hold any personal vendetta against those who wish to arm themselves, I will not wave my arms frantically in the air and shout "Think of the children!" I merely feel differently from the Pro-Gun community. For this reason, though I personally feel that firearms are not beneficiary to crime reduction, I will likely never lobby or politically push for new laws to change it. In short, I will not force others to adopt my views. Meanwhile, this also frees me from actually needing to draw a blueprint for disarmament. I don't have to have a tangible plan on how to carry it out. I have this vague idea that it is actually impossible to do realistically in this society. So, many of the issues that Kopel and Little state (Constitutional law - which I am certainly not qualified to challenge or even speak of, and the difficulties of implementation - noncompliance and resistance) do not hold any bearing to my argument. Let me thus start with Part II, Section IV: Guns and Public Safety.
A) Kopel argues that crime in Rural areas is low, without consideration for the extremely disproportionate population density in those areas while stressing good points like trauma centers which benefit his argument.
B) "The facts suggest that cultural or socioeconomic variables figure much more heavily into the violence phenomenon than does access to firearms."
Which ignores that these same cultural and socioeconomic variables will only stack onto the lethality of firearms. That is, if we were a disarmed nation of psychopaths, we'd be a lot less deadly than if we all had Glocks.
C) He brings Japan into the picture now, but argues incorrectly about its political system. While the national culture and ideology of Japan may be one of the most conformist on Earth, it hardly springs from the political system. Rather, the nature of the Japanese Diet springs from its national culture, the result of a thousand years of a strict disciplinary moral code, which has only increased in severity due to its defeat and subsequent shame in World War 2. Kopel also ignores the duality of Japanese culture: that is, the one side which is the professional and conformist face, the other that belies the Japanese' cry for individuality through wonton decadence. It is that duality and the transition from one side to another which would seemingly cause massive sociological problems leading to violent crime in Japan, but this has only manifested itself in extremely rare incidents. The moral and social issues of Japan are too complex to simply dismiss as being "anti-individualistic."
D) "Indeed, in most of the countries touted by American gun prohibitionists as models, armed-violence rates were far lower at the turn of the century, when the countries had almost no gun laws, than at the end of this century."
This of course negates the simple fact that private gun ownership and availability were at near zero at this point. If memory serves, the Nambu model A was the first Japanese pistol to be allowed to be offered commercially a few years after the turn of the century, and even then, for social and economic reasons, the vast majority of them were bought by Army and Naval officers for use in their duties.
E) "The Communitarian Network's hypothesis is that individuals (gun owners) must sacrifice their (supposed) rights for the greater good of public safety. [344] A significant body of evidence suggests, however, that the Communitarian Network may have the facts backwards: gun ownership may make a positive impact on public safety and may benefit all persons, not just gun owners. In other words, one of the communitarian objectives--enhancement of public safety through responsible actions that benefit the entire community, not just an individual--is already in place through the mechanism of individual gun ownership."
A very important argument here... but such a claim is ultimately futile in that a significant body of evidence can be collected, and HAS been collected that supports either anti or pro-gun sides. I have no doubt that many of these statistics have been skewed completely out of proportion, with facts intentionally left out. Things like the ridiculous "You're 40-something times likely to shoot yourself/a family member than an armed intruder." Now, we all know that's bull, with the balance tipped by ridiculous things like suicides and all that stuff that shouldn't be part of the equation. But it only serves to question the validity of the use of "statistics" by any party, regardless of political viewpoint.
F) "... the Orlando Police Department sponsored firearms safety training for women [...] witnessed an 88% drop in the number of rapes in Orlando."
Very convincing arguments on the rape cases in Orlando, though it does do quite a bit of speculation in the area of the subsequent increase after the initial introduction of the women's gun training course. However, it seems quite air-tight and well researched otherwise, very effective and damning to my argument
, especially the psychological factors it lists.G) "In 1982, the Atlanta exurb of Kennesaw passed an ordinance--in symbolic response to the handgun ban of Morton Grove, Illinois--requiring all residents (with certain exceptions, including conscientious *506 objectors) to keep firearms in their homes. [357] In the seven months following enactment of the ordinance there were only five burglaries, compared to forty-five in the same period the preceding year, constituting an 89% decrease in residential burglary. [358] Kleck and Bordua maintain that "the publicized passage of the ordinance may have served to remind potential burglars in the area of the fact of widespread gun ownership, thereby heightening their perception of the risks of burglary." [359]"
That last section is actually not quite so good for this argument. It seems to indicate that the keeping of personal firearms only seems to reduce crime if it is known beforehand that the intended victims are armed. And so, this is a moot point. One cannot force everyone to own a gun on a national level, and without a significant increase in gun ownership, there cannot be an actual decrease in crime in general. Just as the message was sent to rapists in Orlando, the same message must be sent to all criminals everywhere to prevent crimes. Impossible to do unless an arming of a very sizable number of the population is achieved, especially in high-crime areas.
H) "'Gun ownership among prospective victims may well have as large a crime-inhibiting effect as the crime-generating effects of gun possession among prospective criminals . . . . [T]he two effects may roughly cancel each other out [...] The failure to fully acknowledge this reality,' Kleck concluded, 'can lead to grave errors in devising public policy to minimize violence through gun control.' [367] If Kleck is correct, and if attempts to implement drastic gun control policies, such as domestic disarmament, are ever successful, the result will likely only harm America's communities."
An interesting interpretation. I don't see how "the result will likely only harm America's communities" was reached, seeing as how Kleck quoted a mere three lines above that the two factors cancel each other out.