Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Argument for the Reduction of Gun Control

By the members of www.Reddit.com/r/Guns


October 3, 2012

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.

1.1 Lack of Supporting Data


If an increase in the ownership of guns would increase the crime, then this would
show in the statistics taken by the government. By plotting the percent of a
population of a state owning a gun1 against the violent crime rate per capita
per state2 we get the following chart. As can be seen from the data, there is no

Figure 1: Plot of violent crimes against gun ownership

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 .

1.3 Disarming Criminals


Another thing that should be looked at is why there is no positive correlation.
It is somewhat counter intuitive to take away guns and not see gun related
crime go down. But this can be explained by a simple, but overlooked modier;
criminals dont follow laws. If you ban legal gun sales, they will get their guns
illegally. If you somehow manage to stop black market sales (the possibility
of that is best shown by the drug industry) then they will just turn to making
explosives and bombs. This explanation, however, does rely on the black market
being easy, which it is. It has been found that nearly any weapon, explosive,
3 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-

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.

3.1 Automatic Weapons


An automatics weapon, one that discharges more than 1 round per trigger pull,
is also banned because it is feared they will be used by criminals in violent
crime. However statistics show that an automatic weapon is used in less than
1% of all crimes. And to those who argue that its because of accessibility, the
9 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm
10 http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
11 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf

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 .

3.2 Barrel Shroud


First o, what is a barrel shroud? It is dened as Noun. A ventilated covering
for the barrel of a rearm that prevents accidental burns to the operators13. All
a barrel shroud does is act as a barrier between the barrel, which is extremely
hot, and the user. A barrel shroud is a safety feature and simply because
it looks scary it tends to be illegal in assault weapon classications. In fact
some politicians will make it illegal without even knowing what one is14 . Seeing
as barrel shrouds make it easier for the user to operate the weapon so they
will not burn their hands after sustained use, making this feature illegal would
mean that lawmakers are intentionally making the object more dangerous to the
user, and thus could potentially be violating product safety laws. Though some
do argue that a barrel shroud could be used to allow a criminal to re many
rounds without worrying about the heat, anyone who wanted to do that could
achieve the same thing with home-made remedies with materials for high-heat
insulation that are readily available.

3.3 Bayonet Mount


A bayonet mount is simply a piece on the end of a gun that allows for some
blade to be attached on. Now let us ask the question, is this evil? First o let
us assume its the use of a bayonet the lawmakers fear and not just the nub at
the end of a gun. Well think logically, if you had a gun with a bayonet and
wanted to commit a crime, would you be using the bayonet or the gun? Clearly
the ranged more powerful gun would be used meaning that the bayonet would
be useless as it would be out of range. But let us say close range did happen,
and you tried to use that bayonet, that small blade at the tip of a several foot
long piece of metal that weighs quite a bit, against a small, lightweight and
easy to handle tactical knife (or even a kitchen knife). Clearly at close range a
bayonet is pretty much a disadvantage. So if a bayonet is useless at long, and
close quarters, it doesnt make the rearm any more evil.

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.

3.6 Detachable Magazine


A detachable magazine is a container for ammunition that can directly feed into
the rearm, but can also be removed for reloading22 . A detachable magazine
does not increase the danger of a gun, it does not make it easier to shoot
15 http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rie.aspx?id=4
16 http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rie.aspx?id=630
17 http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rie.aspx?id=883
18 http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rie.aspx?id=344
19 http://www.ar15.com/forums/t 3 121/558009 308 DPMS AP4 308 Weight Breakdown.html
20 Shootout!; The History Channel; Viewed July 8, 2008
21 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/334642/Rie-failure-that-stopped-yet-more-

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 .

3.7 Flash Suppressors and Silencers


Flash suppressor and Silencers are usually grouped with the negative aspect
of gun ownership because their portrayed use is to hide a shooter. However
this logic commonly forgets the original purpose of both of these items. Both
were invented for the purpose of protecting the shooter. The muzzle ash from
unburned powder and heated gases can damage the shooters eye or reduce their
visibility especially in low light conditions. The sound also, from a rearm can
damage the shooters ears, which is why protection is used. A ash suppressor
and a silencer do exactly that, they act to protect the shooter much like a
helmet for a bicycle. Also realistically a silencer is actually just a suppressor, as
it doesnt silence the sound as Hollywood depicts. A .22LR, one of the weakest
rounds is about 117 dB, and a silencer in practice only reduces 14.3 to 43 dB24 .

3.8 Foreign Guns


The idea that a foreign gun is considered evil unless it has enough American
made parts. Saigas are neutered before they are imported, and if someone puts a
standard capacity mag in one, it is illegal, but if it is converted it becomes less
evil and can have regular magazines and other non-sporting features despite
being nearly the same gun that the Russians were unable to import. The logic
here may be that foreign guns may not live up to domestic standards or that to
protect domestic production. However, it would more logical to simply apply
the same standards to foreign guns solving the issue without an unessential ban,
that just complicates the law for no benet.

3.9 Pistol Grip


The pistol grip is given a bad name because it is more commonly seen on tactical
ries than civilian ries. However the pistol grip is in no way dangerous or evil.
All it does is act as a more comfortable way to hold the rie, un aecting
any other aspect. The equivalent would be trying to reduce car accidents by
requiring cars to have wooden chairs for seats.

3.10 Shot Barrels


Short barrelled ries and shotgun are commonly banned under the premise that
they are too easy to conceal. An AR-15 with an 8 barrel is considered an
SBR and extremely dicult to get. Logic being that its too easily concealable.
23 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
24 http://guns.connect./gow/highpow.html

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.

3.11 Telescopic Stock


As with the pistol grip, the telescopic stock is also an aspect that just makes
a gun look scary. This style of stock does nothing more than adjust length to
the shooters preference, its a comfort feature to accommodate dierent sized
people. A telescopic stock is the equivalent of a movable seat in a car, it just
there for comfort. The misconception comes in that most people see civilian
ries with wooden stocks on them, which are usually un-adjustable, while seeing
adjustable stocks on military ries. Thus they associate adjustable stocks with
dangerous weapons, forgetting they have no connection. The argument has
been made that a telescopic stock could be used to conceal a rie easily as it
reduces the length, but a guitar case would be just as eective in transporting
a rearm inconspicuously. So again removing this option has no aect on crime
as statistics has shown.

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.

Ad Hominem An argument that relies on insulting the speaker or source


rather than the data or facts. Example: People who claim big foot exist
are just crazy, so there is no big foot. The argument of calling them crazy
doesnt mean the data is wrong, as mental state does not prove they lied.
Ad Ignorantiam An argument that relies on the lack of data, which attempts
to prove a point because of a lack of counter evidence. Example: Because
no one witnesses the defendant outside of the scene of the crime he was
obviously there. The argument makes a claim, but places the burden of
proof on the opposition which is illogical.

Argument From Authority An argument that is deemed correct by only


the authority of the source and not by logic. Example: I know Santa
exist because my parents told me so. Even though the parents are an
authoritative gure, their authority alone doesnt prove their statement
correct. Note that this is dierent than a testimony from someone whose
authority is the eld they are making a claim about, such as a doctor
making a statement on a bone.
Argument from Personal Incredulity An argument based on the lack of
understanding of the declarer. Example: I do not see how evolution can
make complex animals, therefore it is not true. The issue here is the sayer
is not an expert on the subject, and their lack of understanding proves
nothing, remember, at some point in time nothing was understood, that
doesnt mean nothing was true.
False Analogy An argument that bases a comparison o of a few similarities
to draw larger conclusions that may not be right. Example: A baby is like
a dog in its ability to care for itself, its critical thinking, and its inability
to use normal adult human tools, therefore if its ok to put down a dog,
it is ok to put down a baby. Though a baby and a dog may have a few
thing in common, they also have dierences, meaning one cannot draw a
conclusion from an analogy, one may only it to explain a complex subject.
Double Standard Forcing a burden of proof or requirement on one side, but
not to another. Example: We should not believe in UFOs because there
no concrete proof, unicorns, however are real because my friend said they
saw one. Here, UFOs are given the burden of being concretely proven,
while unicorns are taken to be real by word of mouth.

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai