Contributors:
Cadillakakak
coaxfun
Deagle Shitter
drbiggly
Fretman124
Logisex
Lost Thought
multi-gunner
microfrost
mneptok
Poofengle
Password-123
OmniaMors
supersillybilly
Tatertot-pie
Tanks4me
YouLikaDaJuice
1
Abstract
Over many years there has been a push to reduce the legality of firearm
ownership, a right protected by the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Although some of these laws and regulations have
been made with the best interests in mind, this paper will show that the
arguments used are not based on an honest interpretation of available
statistics, can be counter productive, and in some cases dangerous.
2
Contents
1 Reducing Crime 4
1.1 Lack of Supporting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Deterrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Disarming Criminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Safety of Owners 6
2.1 Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Danger vs. Legality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Assault Weapons 7
3.1 Automatic Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Barrel Shroud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Bayonet Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 Caliber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5 Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6 Detachable Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7 Flash Suppressors and Silencers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.8 Foreign Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9 Pistol Grip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.10 Shot Barrels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.11 Telescopic Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendices 12
A Logical Fallacies 12
3
1 Reducing Crime
A common saying used in gun debates is Guns dont kill people, people kill
people. This may sound obvious, but it actually has a deeper meaning. The
reason murder and violence exist isnt because of any particular weapon. Its
because a person has decided to kill or be violent. If you take away guns there
will still be violence, just with dierent weapons. Many who support restrictions
on gun ownership begin their argument by attributing the reduction of guns with
the reduction of crime. This theory is false and is not supported by evidence.
correlation between the data sets. Considering that each state is the average
of each of its cities, so every city in the USA is included and grouped by gun
laws (by state) it can be clearly seen that the data shows that the ownership of
rearms does not increase crime.
1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
2 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
4
1.2 Deterrent
In fact if a trend line were plotted against the data, a slight negative correlation
would be found, even with the outliers left in. This can easily be explained,
guns act as a deterrent to crime. Theft, for example, would be reduced in an
area where people were heavily armed and more likely to ght back. Or even
look at the Aurora Shooting in Colorado, the shooter chose his location not
based on size of audience or proximity, but by which one had banned guns3 .
The research by the police showed that the cinema he chose was the closest
theater and the only one within 20 miles to ban concealed carry. The people
there were the most vulnerable because the shooter knew that in a gun free
zone no one could ght back. Here not even the ownership of a rearm, but the
chance of ownership deterred the shooter from trying those theaters. The lack
of an armed audience was so signicant the shooter was able to take his time to
reload between shooting and even switch weapons on whim.
This deterrence eect shows in other gun-free zones as well. Utah, for exam-
ple, is the only state that allows teachers and sta to carry weapons on school
grounds, and it has never had a school shooting spree even attempted4 . Or
take Virginia Tech, where less than a year after the school enforced its no carry
rule on a student who had a valid concealed carry license, they witnessed one of
the most horric shootings in history. An event that could have been stopped
early, or even prevented if anyone in its ground zero was armed. The fact is,
gun ownership deters crime.
Another area where this can be seen is in defensive gun use, where an owner
uses a gun to prevent a crime or harm to themselves or their property. How
many defensive gun situations are there? A study done by Dr. Phillip Cook and
Dr. Jens Ludwig, known pro gun control advocates, there are about 1,460,000
instances of guns being used to protect, guns being used positively. Even if
we the extreme assumption that only 1% of these events saved a life, that still
calculates to 14,600 lives saved each year. Meaning even biasing the statistics
vastly to one side, guns save more lives each year than they do in homocides5 .
cinemark-theater/
4 http://www.examiner.com/article/so-called-gun-free-zones-never-protect-the-innocent
5 http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/bruce-w-krat/mikeb-is-wrong-again-still/
5
destructive device, armor, or what have you is readily available on the internet
using anonymous browsers6. Sites connect you to anonymous dealers who can
get you these weapons delivered to you house in small pieces to go under the
radar, or even dropped o at a secret location whose GPS location is sent to
you.
The conclusion that we should draw here is not that we need more regulation
to stop this. The war on drugs and the prohibition showed us that it is nearly
impossible to prevent a criminal from getting something they want. Gun bans,
and complicated licensing systems dont take guns away from the bad guys, it
just takes them away from people who follow the law. That means all of these
regulations do nothing other than disarming good people who want to defend
themselves from criminals who will have guns regardless of the law.
2 Safety of Owners
Another common argument encountered is that a rearm is actually a danger to
the owner and those around them. Most notably the argument revolves around
suicides. Yet another larger factor that should be looked at is if danger to self
those around them justies the right for a ban.
2.1 Suicide
People commonly argue that guns should not be kept in the house because they
increase the rate of suicide. The logic behind this is that if someone wants to
commit suicide, a gun is easy and eective. So it will be easier to kill ones self
and have a high success rate. However what is commonly overlooked is that
there is nothing to support this, a Harvard study7 says:
The mantra more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal
less death is also used to argue that limiting access to rearms
could prevent many suicides. Once again, this assertion is directly
contradicted by the studies of 36 and 21 nations (respectively) which
nd no statistical relationship. Overall suicide rates were no worse
in nations with many rearms than in those where rearms were far
less widespread.
The reason this is so is because people who commit suicide wont suddenly stop
simply because they dont have access to a rearm, they will nd other methods.
Hanging, drug over dose, etc can all be used and require materials that are more
readily available than a rearm. Even as far as eectiveness goes the dierent
between the statistical success rates of certain methods is insignicant, and
actually depends more on how they use the rearm/poison/other than which
method they use8 .
6 http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-
anything
7 http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30 No2 KatesMauseronline.pdf
8 http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
6
2.2 Danger vs. Legality
Another important point that should be brought up is whether something that
is dangerous should instantly be made illegal or restricted. Logically speaking
if Laws began to encompass this protective nature, of taking away dangerous
things, to adults, then we lose our freedom. The right to choose to endanger
yourself for your own pursuit of happiness. But the implications of this go
beyond an infringement of your rights. In 2008, over 35,000 people were killed
by re arms, and over 79,000 injured9 . However, that same year over 37,000
people were killed10 and over 1,630,000 people injured by motor vehicles11 . A
comparison only made worse by the fact that of the death by guns, removing
suicide (covered later in this) there are actually under 12,000 deaths per year.
So by the same logic of gun laws, cars should be made illegal because they are
signicantly more dangerous than any rearm. However the point here isnt to
add cars to the list of over-regulated items, but to see why guns should not be.
When someone enters a car and drives, they are accepting the risk of injury,
they know its real and prepare for it, shown by getting insurance. Similarly
someone who owns a rearm does so with the acknowledgement of this same
risk. Now people may go on to say that owning a rearm also puts ones kids
at risk, but cars also do that, and as shown more kids get injured in a car than
by a rearm. This system of acknowledged risk, is the reason people have the
freedom to skydive, drive, drink, sleep on a bunk bed, own a length of rope, or
anything else. Since guns have also been shown to be less dangerous than some
of those things, they also should have that same amount of freedom.
3 Assault Weapons
Another common theme with rearms are Assault Weapon Bans, which is a
law that makes certain features or combinations of features illegal. However
most of these laws follow a similar pattern of If it looks scary, it must be evil.
The issue here is that the people who are making the laws about guns clearly
have shown they have very little understanding of guns. As can be seen upon
further view, most of the denitions of an Assault Weapon have no impact on
the villainy of a rearm.
7
most common used gun is a single shot pistol even though more powerful guns
are just as available, meaning that is not the case12 .
3.4 Caliber
The caliber of a bullet is the diameter of the round usually in inches or mm.
Many laws ban guns and ammunition based on the diameter of the round.
However there are so many characteristics of a cartridge that aect the damage
it does to a target (that also varies by target) that an all out ban based o an
arbitrary number is futile. Take for example the .22LR and the .223REM, they
12 http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun facts 6 1 screen.pdf
13 http://www.lexic.us/denition-of/barrel
shroud
14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
8
are .003 inches apart in diameter, yet the latter has 180% of the energy1516 .
Or take for example the 30-06 and the 300WinMag, which have the exact same
diameter of .3 inches, the latter has 124% of the former. The caliber, though
may have a slight correlation to the impact damage, really is a random aspect
to place a restriction on. In fact the .338LapuaMag has more energy than the
larger caliber, .416Rigby1718 .
3.5 Capacity
The capacity of a rearm also comes into question. However, how many bullets
a gun can hold really doesnt aect its lethality. What makes a gun that holds
16 rounds evil but the same gun with 15 rounds safe? Now people against this
could argue that if that logic is kept then there is no end, so a limit should
be kept, even if seemingly arbitrary. Yet the plausibility of this needs to be
taken into account. Say there is no rule and someone has a rearm with 100
rounds in it. Imagine the weight the shooter would need to bear, 100 rounds of
.308 (a common hunting round) would weigh 5lbs, almost doubling the weight
of the average rie19 . A very gaping loophole in the ideology of lower capacity
means lower lethality is that even if all magazines were limited to a certain size,
the shooter could still simply pack more magazines on his or her person. Even
if all handguns across the United States had a ten round capacity maximum,
all one could do to circumvent this would be to simply stick more magazines
in their pockets. If one wears cargo pants and a heavy jacket, they can still
very easily carry hundreds of rounds on them. Meaning the only way to truly
prevent this scenario would be to ban pockets, backpacks, purses, etc. Whereas
simply legalizing any capacity size would allow everyone to have this advantage
allowing for the deterrence eect discussed earlier. And even if all of the above
were ignored, in practice capacity means nothing. In the North Hollywood
shootings, over 2000 rounds were red, yet only 18 people were wounded20 .
Or the Aurora shooter in Colorado who was using a 100 drum magazine, but
malfunctioned after under 30 rounds21 . Clearly capacity isnt as bad as it is
portrayed.
Batman-carnage
22 http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Non detachable magazines#How is .22detachable magazine.22 dened.3F
9
someone. All it does is make it easier to reload a rearm, which has no impact
on using the rearm. Now one could argue that reloading would help someone
using the rearm in illegal ways, but if you compare states with and without
assault weapon law, you can see there is no trend between the two23 .
10
However, removing the stock as well classies it as a pistol and it is now legal
despite being even more concealable. A handgun with a fore grip is considered
an AOW and will land you in the slammer if you dont get your stamp. The
USAS 12 and Striker shotguns are considered destructive devices because they
have no sporting purposes, but the Saiga and MKA-1919 are strikingly similar
to the USAS but legal.
11
A Logical Fallacies
A common mistake made in any argument is the use of Logical Fallacies or
an argument that relies on incorrect logic. Use of a fallacy does not mean the
opposite of the given statement is true, simple that the statement isnt. So if
argument A proves point B by using a fallacy, it does not mean B is false, it
simply means B was not proven.
12
False Dichotomy Simplifying a complex array or options into only a nite
amount (usually two). Example: Either you are for the war or you hate
America, pick your side. The argument here ignores the vast array of
options of opinion, and simplies it to two, and by demonizing one forces
the other.
No True Scotsman Adding a false amendment to a denition to disprove a
point. Example: All Scotsmen must be very brave, so since Ian Kerr isnt
very brave he is no true Scotsman. The issue here is the bravery part of
the denition of a Scotsman isnt true, and therefore the conclusion also
isnt true.
Post hoc ergo Propter hoc An argument based an assuming a correlation
implies causation, without supportive data or proper experimental con-
trols.Example: Whenever I dont bring an umbrella, it rains, therefore my
decision to bring an umbrella decides the weather. The issue here is the
lack of control testing and proper data, a simply correlation is immediately
assumed to be a causation.
Reductio ad Absurdum An argument where the logic is simplied and stretched
to another example which when false is claimed to disprove the former.
Example: Since killing a murderer is moral, killing the judge who dictated
his death is also just. This argument ignores the other facts and context
in the scenarios and draws a false conclusion by over simplifying the logic.
Slippery Slope The assumption that if a moderate stance is taken, then all
extremes of that must also be accepted. Example: If homosexuals are
allowed to marry, then people should be allowed to marry toasters. The
issue here is that it ignores there is always a spectrum of options and
moving the dividing line in any direction does not mean it has to move to
thats directions extreme.
13