What matters more, principles or results?

[Habeed]

Hypothetically, let's suppose that we somehow create a third party, completely unbiased group to crunch all the numbers and determine if, once and for all, if guns in the hands of citizens prevent more crimes than they cause.

Hypothetically, what if this group discovers evidence beyond dispute that widespread gun ownership on average causes more deaths than it prevents. That for every person who fends off an intruder or stops a crime, two weak people grab a gun and kill themselves or shoots someone they are angry.*

And, again, hypothetically, they analyze past military insurrections and determine that the chance of citizens EVER overthrowing the government is near zero.*2

In this scenario, what would matter more :

1. The PRINCIPLE of the matter. Freedom itself is worth defending, even if the actual results show it isn't helping.

2. The RESULTS : in our reality, to the best of current knowledge, a particular course of action is a bad one.

* The current evidence mostly points this way
*2 in the historical record, no western country has fallen to a rebellion in at least a century.

 

[Mike J]

Habeed whose Kool Aid you been drinking? Please don't quote the Kellerman study. It is crap. Why don't you read up on some of the research done by Gary Kleck. Read some of the research done by John Lott & then come back & talk to us.

Anyone can make any study conclude whatever they like depending on what guidelines they use for what data to use or not use. Please learn to think critically.

 

[Habeed]

That doesn't matter, Mike. I'm saying that IF the facts came out a certain way (freedom to have guns has a cost), then would freedom still be worth the price?

 

[Birch Knoll]

What if, by pushing an innocent fat man into the path of a runaway trolley, and therefore certain death, you could save the lives of a dozen others?

Welcome to Ethics 101.

 

[hso]

Hypothetically, what if this group discovers evidence beyond dispute that widespread gun ownership on average causes more deaths than it prevents. That for every person who fends off an intruder or stops a crime, two weak people grab a gun and kill themselves or shoots someone they are angry.*

It has already been done by the Department of Justice and the results clearly show that firearms are used many more times a year to stop a violent crime than they are used to commit them.


WRT insurrections, yesssss, we've done so well recently with that. Iraq and Afghanistan have been screaming successes and we've had no problem dealing with the armed groups there and we've had not troops in those countries for years because ... You get the picture.

 

[Mike J]

Yes freedom is worth the price. I believe it was Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty or give me death". Freedom is by its very nature a dangerous thing but I would rather take my chances with freedom than live the life of a serf.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Ever heard the slogan of the Libertarian party?

'The party of principle'

Everything they support is based on the non-aggression principle. This silly cartoon explains it perfectly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
Recognize the tune?

 

[qwert65]

Principle

 

[Tipro]

First off, I don't know what evidence you looked at, but I would like to see the second one in particular (about suicides/murders compared to lawful self defense).

My answer to this question turns on utility value I think. Would I give up my individual right to keep and bear arms because other people use their arms irresponsibly? No. That right is too fundamental, and too critical to my own personal safety. However, I would be willing to give up my right to high-capacity magazines if it were proven to me that doing so would have saved lives in the recent Aurora shooting, or if you could prove to me that giving that up would save people in the future. I know yall will likely flame me for that, but ask yourself whether you would give up your 33 round Glock mags in order to save that 6 year old child in Aurora, and if anyone says they would not I would love to hear your explanation.

 

[rcmodel]

To me, it's not all about the guns, or principals.
But what if they did come for the guns first?

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Pastor Niemoller, Germany, 1946

Giving up one American Freedom for the good of all, is the path to giving up all other freedoms for the good of all.

Pretty soon, there is no more freedom left to give up, no one left to speak out for your freedom, and we are all slaves to someone in power with no one to speak out for us.

I do not ever want my children, or their children's children, to be that person in America.

rc

 

[Skribs]

if guns in the hands of citizens prevent more crimes than they cause.

Guns obviously prevent more crimes than they cause. The presence of a gun might be enough to deter a criminal, but the presence of a gun isn't a crime in itself, unless you factor in specific state laws or NFA firearms.

This is where you go wrong. Guns don't cause crime. Guns are used in crime.

 

[holdencm9]

I will try to answer the OP without interjecting my personal conclusions as to whether or not guns are a net positive/negative in society.

Principles are more important. Why should my individual human rights be infringed upon because other people out there are evil-doers or use guns for crime rather than protection? This is the same thing that has probably been re-hashed a million times at elementary schools over the centuries. Some kids can't be trusted with gum; they'll put it under the desk, so NO ONE can chew gum. Some kids can't be trusted with cell phones, they'll text during class, so NO ONE can have cell phones. Sure, by outright banning the thing, there may be less gum to scrape off the desks, but it unnecessarily punishes the wrong people.

2 in the historical record, no western country has fallen to a rebellion in at least a century.

Hmmm, no WESTERN country. But that is probably because we've been lucky. Also I like to think that the presence of our bearing arms keep the government honest. (Well, more honest than they otherwise would be )

 

[gym]

You guys have to stop answering these leading questions, they are designed to draw you into a debate that can be used against the pro gun movement. Filled with bull crap and misleading statistics, from now on just write "leading question" and leave it alone, these guys want to engage you in a debate. Don't fall for it, we have made our position clear just by being on a gun forum. There are all kinds of snakes that come out when Tragedies strike. Shut them down instead of dragging it out for pages, and they will go away.

 

[Water-Man]

^^^ This ^^^

 

[Bubba613]

It's a reasonable question. The fact that some people cannot answer it is irrelevant.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not related to statistical outcomes. Even if someone were able to prove that private ownership of guns causes more harm than not that is irrelevant. The fact that it is a right is what is important.

 

[Sam1911]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with crime, accidents, "gun deaths," or hunting, target shooting, gun collecting, etc.

It stands above all such concerns.

 

[lobo9er]

freedom isn't free, its a Buck O'five. Yeah just to broken record others the "study" has been done.

 

[Mobuck]

Personal freedom is worth the lives of millions of American fighting men who've died for the PRINCIPLE over the last 200+ years. To even suggest this is flawed puts you(and/or anyone else) in the crosshairs.
I have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America twice (two different govt agencies) and I've never been unsworn to my knowledge. While not the man I was in 1970(or 80), I am still ready and able to stand up to carry my part of those commitments to the CONSTITUTION, not to a bunch of lying politicians.
I have kept this as clean and nonaggressive as I possibly can in light of THR policy.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

However, I would be willing to give up my right to high-capacity magazines if it were proven to me that doing so would have saved lives in the recent Aurora shooting, or if you could prove to me that giving that up would save people in the future. I know yall will likely flame me for that, but ask yourself whether you would give up your 33 round Glock mags in order to save that 6 year old child in Aurora, and if anyone says they would not I would love to hear your explanation.

What if you were given evidence a high cap magazine saved lives?

You probably don't remember the Clinton AWB, 10 round Max. When it sunset guess what, gun crime did not increase.

If you think law is the answer, we should make it illegal to kill each other. Oh wait it already is, hows that working out?

 

[lobo9er]

I hate to use the word "troll". Ever see the movie troll hunter. When the hunter yells "TROLL!" for some reason that scene comes to mind.

Habeed has some "od" posts about shooting down planes with a 50 cal and other things I question.

 

[Owen Sparks]

holdencm9 said:

Why should my individual human rights be infringed upon because other people out there are evil-doers or use guns for crime rather than protection? This is the same thing that has probably been re-hashed a million times at elementary schools over the centuries. Some kids can't be trusted with gum; they'll put it under the desk, so NO ONE can chew gum. Some kids can't be trusted with cell phones, they'll text during class, so NO ONE can have cell phones. Sure, by outright banning the thing, there may be less gum to scrape off the desks, but it unnecessarily punishes the wrong people.

This is called COLLECTIVISM Any time you are seen as a member of some group (society) rather than as an individual, you will be considered no more capable than the least member of that group or the weakest link. This is why collectivist laws are always designed for the lowest common denominators, criminals and idiots. The problem is that they treat everyone like criminals and idiots. This is a realy lazy way to govern as well as being a form of group punishment just like the school examples above.

If the government does not want you to have a modern military rifle they should have to PROVE that you are incompitent. Not the other way around. The burden of proof should be on the accuser. Again, read my signature line below V

Read more about collectividm vs. Individuilism if you are interested here:
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

 

[Charleo0192]

If the government does not want you to have a modern military rifle they should have to PROVE that you are incompitent. Not the other way around. The burden of proof should be on the accuser.

I wish the world only worked like this. I'm sure at some point it did. Now it is the job of the defendant to prove they are not guilty though. I am not saying I agree with this method. I am simply stating how it works.

 

[taliv]

Roughly 1.8 million people are injured in the US in car crashes each of the past 20 years. Over 32,000 die per year. That is the equivalent of 85 aurora shootings EVERY DAY 365 days per year!

if you really wanted to be effective at preventing injury and death, you would propose

reducing the speed limit to 30 mph
banning cars that could exceed 30mph
requiring cars to have breathalyzers and interference to prevent cell phone reception when the car is in drive


Clearly, our society makes decisions about the value of freedom and it's cost in human tragedy. It's ok and even expected for individuals to have opinions and disagree about those decisions. My own opinion is that those focusing on gun bans are not doing so out of genuine concern for human safety, but because they have irrational fears because the thought of individual responsibility is offensive to their worldview.


ETA, the OP does seem to be setting up (intentionally or otherwise) a classic "have you stopped beating your wife?" question such that there's no way to directly answer the question

 

[GEM]

Scholarly studies of genocide point to many factors for such.

One is that the group to be killed cannot defend themselves. Seen over the world.

Thus, see the African-American Deacons for Defense. We see the point made by the Black Panthers when they marched with rifles. Then we saw restrictive gun laws in California in response to them making their point.'

Thus, a reservoir of force in the general populace in the USA is a unique but needed buffer in the rare case of tyranny or genocide.

The gun crime of course entails guns but the engine for most is societal shortfalls. The middle class murder rate has been flat for many years. It is the drug wars that caused the surge.

 

[Skribs]

Thus, a reservoir of force in the general populace in the USA is a unique but needed buffer in the rare case of tyranny or genocide.

Or invasion. I've heard many times that the reason the Japanese did not invade America during WWII was because they thought we were all John Wayne.