Liberals typically argued that more guns mean more crime. Not only is there a correlation between access to guns and gun related violence, but access to guns contributes to crime—to crimes which would not otherwise be committed. Guns cause crime.
How might we put this theory to the test? What would be a good test case? Where would we see this theory play out in a real world situation?
If the theory were true, then we’d expect military bases and academies as well as military units in the field or battleships at sea (or even the Pentagon) to reflect astronomical rates of gun related violence.
Military personnel are often armed. Even when they’re unarmed, they have easy access to guns. Their workplace environment is saturated with guns.
Moreover, life in the military can be very stressful. Why don’t more soldiers go postal?
Furthermore, the armed forces are disproportionately male, compared with the general population, and crimes of violence are disproportionately male.
Finally, the military is a macho subculture. Girly-men need not apply. We'd expect male aggression to be on display.
All things considered, this would be the ideal sample group to test the correlation between guns and crimes of violence. (The local police dept. might be analogous as well.)
I don’t have the stats, but if the liberal theory is correct, then gun related crimes should be higher by several orders of magnitude in military life than in civilian life. Not just a little higher, but going through the roof.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, London banned guns in 1997. Since then, violent crime has skyrocketed in the city.
All the most horrific shootings in the US were in gun free zones, like schools and universities. Furthermore, in those massacres, the gunman was usually stopped by himself, through self-inflicted gunshots wounds.
OMG Steve and me agree on something! Hooray!
I am n ot a liberal nor believe in gun control but you seem to have oversimplified the liberal view.
ReplyDeleteTo expand on what blackhaw said, a liberal might counter that military bases and police stations contain officers who are highly trained, disciplined, and scrutinized with regard to adequate firearms behavior.
ReplyDeleteOf course, at that point, they're admitting that the whole issue is a bit more complicated than more guns = more crime, but it would at least add a bit more of a challenging element to the discussion - for example, whether arms-bearing citizens should undergo mandatory firearms training, etc.
BLACKHAW SAID:
ReplyDelete“I am n ot a liberal nor believe in gun control but you seem to have oversimplified the liberal view.”
You haven’t given me a single reason to question my original post.
SEMPER REFORMANDA SAID:
“To expand on what blackhaw said, a liberal might counter that military bases and police stations contain officers who are highly trained, disciplined, and scrutinized with regard to adequate firearms behavior.”
How would that affect the rate of gun-related violent? Wouldn’t it just mean that if a soldier uses a gun to commit a crime, he will use it more efficiently than someone without expert training in firearms?
"How would that affect the rate of gun-related violent? Wouldn’t it just mean that if a soldier uses a gun to commit a crime, he will use it more efficiently than someone without expert training in firearms?"
ReplyDeleteWell, since I'm neither a liberal or a gun control advocate, I'm only floating hypotheticals here...but perhaps the reasoning might be that the military and the police are immersed in an environment where every day they face responsibility for the actions they take, and are made aware of their duties and the repurcussions for misusing any kind of weaponry. Joe Citizen, on the other hand, might be more likely to take those responsibilities for granted and pop someone because of a heated argument or drunken shenanigans.
To me, that's not so convincing because crimes of passion and/or insanity can happen on military bases as well, but as you noted, don't seem to be as common. Furthermore, it could be argued that a lack of guns isn't going to necessarily stop a crime of passion and/or insanity from ending in murder.
Semper Reformanda,
ReplyDeleteAmong gun clubs and self-defense clubs, the civilian members of those clubs often look at "trained police officers" as being overrated in regards their shooting capabilities, and with good reason.
And regardless, if your characterization of the "liberal" view is correct, then the argument isnt even ABOUT gun control, but about TRAINING CONTROL. As in "take some shooting classes."
Its like the difference between saying cars should be banned, or saying that drivers should be trained before being allowed to use a car.
In essence, if its a metter of training, then the only logical solution is NOT to restrict gun ownership, but merely to expand gun training and make it mandatory.
However, I do have some liberal family members and to them the argument REALLY IS as "simplified" as this: "guns are dangerous, so lets make them illegal."
Ive argued with them at length about this, and they fail to make the connection that just because something is illegal doesnt mean it wont happen. Drugs, murder, theft, and rape are ALL illegal, but those things still happen dont they? We still need to protect ourselves from those things dont we?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
That's kind of what I thought. Thanks, Aaron, that helps put it in context better.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, violent crimes in the U.S are both at their lowest (rural areas) and highest (inner-cities) where gun ownership rates are the highest. Guns are clearly not to blame, inner-city conditions like like violence committed by/between poor minorities and the war on drugs are the cause.
ReplyDelete"You haven’t given me a single reason to question my original post."
ReplyDeleteI would not think so. But it is oversimplistic. That is a good enough reason to question your post. If this is some liberal's argument then it is not worth debating against. It is just stupid and ignorant. But many pacifists and others who believe in gun conrol can make better arguments. Try and tackle some of them. The argument you have given liberals is not worth fighting against. Oh and BTW unlike some I know many liberals who would give much better arguments and i do not know any that would make such a simplistic argument.
BLACKHAW SAID:
ReplyDelete"I would not think so. But it is oversimplistic."
That's a bare assertion, not an argument. You say so, but you don't show so.
"That is a good enough reason to question your post."
An assertion is not a reason. It's just an assertion. An assertion bereft of a reason.
"But many pacifists and others who believe in gun conrol can make better arguments. Try and tackle some of them."
Try and present something resembling an argument yourself, for a change. No wonder you converted to Orthodoxy. Having shot your brains out, it was a short step to Orthodoxy.
"Oh and BTW unlike some I know many liberals who would give much better arguments and i do not know any that would make such a simplistic argument."
All you ever do is talk about arguments rather than presenting one. No wonder you converted to Orthodoxy. Just the place for an intellectual slacker like yourself.