How Many Lives Is Gun Control Worth?

[TripleB]

The lines are being drawn in the sand and from what I'm seeing, I'd estimate several thousand (minimum) to tens of thousands of casualties in the fight following any new federal assault weapon ban. I'm not just talking about backwoods militias and rednecks. I'm talking about police agencies, such as the Utah Sheriff's organization that released a statement they are willing to die to preserve the second amendment and will fight the federal government with force, if necessary, should they attempt to confiscate firearms in their state. And it's not just this one state, either.

So as a question to anyone who agrees with gun control, if the purpose of gun control is to save lives, how many lives is implemented gun control worth? If 10,000 have to die for the federal government to gain compliance in banning assault weapons, is that worth it?

From the numbers I've seen, the deaths due to assault weapons as a percentage of total firearms is significantly less than 5% of all firearm homicides are caused by "semi automatic assault weapons" as they are currently defined. Most are by handguns.

So if "we" can "save" 500 deaths per year by banning assault weapons, is it worth having 10,000 Americans killed up front to institute it? Personally I think 10,000 is optimistic and I'd estimate 50k to 100k deaths.

Or do the gun-control advocates think people will peacefully turn in their firearms because the president signs a piece of paper telling them to? And that the municipal and state police officers will enforce those pieces of paper that conflict with the Bill of Rights?

[TripleB]

On further thought, I'd bet the Democrats don't care about the casualties towards their gun-free utopia. Much like the Republicans don't care about the casualties towards their drug-free utopia.

If you added up the number of lives "lost" to the drug-war, from an economic efficiency level of the "good guys" efforts being wasted to arrest, defend, try, bail out, incarcerate, and rehabilitate the "bad guys", it would significantly outnumber any "lives saved" from children snorting cocaine that was "freely" available.

When it comes to political utopias, the ends always justify the means, even if it's completely illogical. e.g. "Too many people die from gun violence so let's invoke armed civil uprisings that increase gun violence to stop gun violence."

[RuralEngineer]

I don't think it's that the gun grabbers don't care about casualties, it's that they don't think there will be any.  I have yet to meet a single proponent of gun control who thinks anyone would be willing to die to protect the 2nd amendment.

If they could understand, they wouldn't be gun grabbers...

With respect to numbers, the Federal Government was willing to let something like 2% of the population die in the Civil War to maintain control.  That's at least 6,000,000 today.  I'd like to think that the Federal Government is too gutless to let such an atrocity happen again, but I may be falling into the same trap as the gun grabbers.  Who knows, maybe those who support the abolition of the 2nd amendment think it's a goal worth losing 6 million lives for.

[WildAboutHarry]

We citizens of the USA have shown very little backbone in defending against intrusions into the Bill of Rights:

4th - TSA
6th - War on Terror
8th - War on Drugs
10th - States/Citizens Reserved Rights

A gun-owning acquaintance of mine was once asked by a reporter, why the second amendment was so important to gun owners.

His reply was to ask the reporter why the first amendment was so important to reporters.

[moda0306]

Both sides were willing to let 2% of the population die in the civil war.  The South did it to preserve slavery, mostly.  The north did it to preserve the union in a way that didn't result in a massive expansion of slavery and Southern power.  These were far more important to the powers that be than the death count resulting, especially considering that they weren't the poor saps getting drafted. There were huge economic consequences at stake. Gun confiscation is about hopeful crime prevention. It's about limiting death count.  Engaging in armed conflict with citizens to prevent crime would be a horrible strategic move in terms of human tragedy.

If certain Americans would actually fight the government to defend their interpretation of the constitution (well, the 2nd amendment anyway... Seems like that's the only thing in current law proposals that these people are willing to defend with violence), then that's obviously there choice, but I question that strategic move as well, if living a free life is the ultimate goal.  Will going to battle with government make you more or less free?  There certainly are plenty of things that could be arguably be considered unconstitutional in the eyes of a Thomas Jefferson that nobody seems ready to take up arms on.  Taxes, regulations, the draft, federal government limiting the state declaration of certain people as property... All of these have huge affects on our daily lives in ways our ar-15 does not.  Would gun enthusiasts defend a man who would shoot up the social security administration or the department of education or IRS because they're unconstitutional, coercive and confiscatory? I personally would question the sanity of anyone willing to engage in armed conflict against a government confiscating these weapons, but the government, if they truly want to prevent crime and death, definitely has to look at those facts and probably shouldn't confiscate. It would be an awful idea, IMO, and probably wouldn't prevent all that much crime.

[TripleB]

I personally would question the sanity of anyone willing to engage in armed conflict against a government confiscating these weapons

I question the sanity of anyone not willing to engage under these circumstances.

[Pointedstick]

I personally would question the sanity of anyone willing to engage in armed conflict against a government confiscating these weapons

I question the sanity of anyone not willing to engage under these circumstances.

There are many reasons why one might not want to do this, despite even agreeing with the premise. Only healthy, young, unemployed, unattached young men would have nothing to lose in an armed conflict with the government over weapons confiscation. Others would have the impediments of careers, spouses, children, elderly dependent parents, medical conditions... Assuming the issue was not forced (that is to say, no civil war broke out), I would expect proportionally fewer of those people to participate.

But in general, I lean toward moda on this. The political process still functions. If the government bans and confiscates any significant amount of weapons anywhere, the courts will slap it right down, to say nothing of what the federal and state legislators will do. Buoyed by the tens to hundreds of millions of angry citizens, they would be able to push through a new constitutional amendment very, very quickly. And the new amendment would be extremely clear in its purposes; none of this flouncy "well-regulated militia" language that's so easy to misinterpret.

Confiscation can only happen in areas with a civilian shooting culture that has been eradicated or was never very strong to begin with. That doesn't describe very much of America. The farther out of the mainstream that anti-gunners push their policies, the faster their political power will be reduced to cinders. I mean, just remember what happened after they passed a national AWB the first time. And we're even stronger now, with more people than ever before owning AR-15s and handguns with magazines holding 15 or more rounds.

[moda0306]

TripleB,

What other limits to our freedoms would you find armed resistance appropriate?  If the government taking my ar-15 away is one of those instances, certainly the government forcing me at gunpoint to fight a foreign war for them would be, would it not?  How about high taxes?  Is 70% a good threshold?  What about federal regulations?

If it were confiscation of all guns, maybe I could see the logic, but simply taking "assault weapons" still leaves us with some amazingly effective killing tools.

Edit:  I realize we don't currently have a draft, but part of the narrative by pro-gun revolutionaries is that we're losing freedoms from "back in the good ol' days," so I find referencing restrictions on our freedoms from those days as being fair game.

[Pointedstick]

TripleB,

What other limits to our freedoms would you find armed resistance appropriate?  If the government taking my ar-15 away is one of those instances, certainly the government forcing me at gunpoint to fight a foreign war for them would be, would it not?  How about high taxes?  Is 70% a good threshold?  What about federal regulations?

See here's the thing, it's all about context. I would consider that an appropriate response if they passed a law banning the internet, but there are a lot of old people who wouldn't care. If they banned cars, doodle wouldn't care. If they banned bikes, doodle would be livid.

The problem, I think, is this whole idea of federal bans on anything. No matter what the subject is, there's always going to be some group of people--large or small-- who will find it outrageous and tyrannical. If we want to avoid this kind of potentially violence-inducing polarization, I think the federal government should probably avoid talking about banning things, especially those whose owners number in the millions.

[TripleB]

The problem with a firearm ban is that it destroys the "nuclear" option that citizens have to remain free. Without guns, there can be no armed revolt, and essentially, the citizens are completely powerless to a tyrannical government. It's a forward looking concern that I have.

It's like saying, suppose someone was going to hold you down and forcibly inject you with a disease that be latent but then in 20 years will kill you horribly. Do you consider that different than if the disease they inject you with will kill you immediately? I view them the same and my response would be as such.

interesting speech by Tienanmen square protester on gun rights, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEmIfhfxuc&feature=player_embedded

[moda0306]

I suspect doodle isn't a proponent of banning cars.  Maybe just unnecessary trucks with lift kits ?

If we're debating the logic of a legislator, your point on bans is potentially valid (though our government bans explosive weapons without incident... And these would surely be useful in the uprising).

This is a debate about what we as free people should do with the time and resources we have, or more specifically, what we have a moral justification in doing when confronted with some small or large dose of coercion or confiscation.  Nothing our government has done or condoned, whether it be slavery, draft, high taxes, regulations, limited use of "federal lands," Feds acquiring land in questionable manner, internment of Japanese, Feds controlling massively destructive technology, Feds controlling intellectual property or education or equality laws, and the list goes on... None of those things (well, maybe Civil Rights enforcement by the Feds post civil war and during the civil rights movement) have triggered such a violent threat from the "freedom fighters" now threatening we'll see 1776 again over confiscation of a certain class of weapons... Weapons that by the very assertion of their owners are "no more deadly than their less-scary looking rifles."

This supposed mountain is a molehill in the grand scheme of things. Hence, why I question the sanity of those willing to openly threaten to defend that hill.

On a related note, when fully automatic weapons were banned in the mid-80's how did this all play out?

[MediumTex]

We will find out a lot about the House Republicans in the next few months as this issue unfolds.

Gun control is just a state power grab.  I'm surprised that this isn't more obvious to more people, and it's not really a partisan issue.  George Bush I gave us the 1990s federal assault weapons ban and Mitt Romney gave the people of Massachusetts an assault weapons ban as governor.

Gun control is about statism, not public safety.  Crime statistics from areas with and without strong gun control make this obvious.

The problem with statist political leaders is that they often seem to believe the dumb rationales they offer the public for why it's necessary to give up freedoms and accept expansions of the sphere of state action in order to be free.

[moda0306]

TripleB,

Fully automatic weapons are currently banned and our government has actual nukes, along with an assortment of unavailable deadly weaponry... What "nuclear option" do we have now that we wouldn't have even if "assault weapons," which are apparently no less deadly than their less scary looking counterparts, were banned or even confiscated?

We have no nuclear option, and even if we did, banning a certain class of guns wouldn't be the difference.

[Pointedstick]

Nothing our government has done or condoned, whether it be slavery, draft, high taxes, regulations, limited use of "federal lands," Feds acquiring land in questionable manner, internment of Japanese, Feds controlling massively destructive technology, Feds controlling intellectual property or education or equality laws, and the list goes on... None of those things (well, maybe Civil Rights enforcement by the Feds post civil war and during the civil rights movement) have triggered such a violent threat from the "freedom fighters" now threatening we'll see 1776 again over confiscation of a certain class of weapons... Weapons that by the very assertion of their owners are "no more deadly than their less-scary looking rifles."

One could just as easily say, if they're "no more deadly than their less-scary looking rifles", why ban them?

See here's the thing... it's the arbitrariness that's so galling. It would be like if they banned Legos and allowed Mega Bloks, or banned Bing but allowed Google. It's just completely idiotic. It's insulting. It offends us. It's not how we believe a free society should be run.

Furthermore, please don't lump us in with racists who opposed civil rights. We're talking about very different groups of people. The gun nuts who are angry about these developments are absolutely NOT the same people who lynched blacks and cheered on the kidnapping of Japanese-American citizens.

On a related note, when fully automatic weapons were banned in the mid-80's how did this all play out?

They weren't actually banned. What was banned was the new registration of automatic weapons. Existing automatic weapons could still be transferred, raising their price. Nowadays they cost many thousands of dollars.

Nobody much cared because due to the high tax, not a lot of people had automatic weapons. The constituency was small enough that the federal government could get away with it.

That's exactly what we fear: that the government will incrementally make weapons ownership so burdensome, that fewer and fewer people resist with each new encroachment.

[moda0306]

We will find out a lot about the House Republicans in the next few months as this issue unfolds.

Gun control is just a state power grab.  I'm surprised that this isn't more obvious to more people, and it's not really a partisan issue.  George Bush I gave us the 1990s federal assault weapons ban and Mitt Romney gave the people of Massachusetts an assault weapons ban as governor.

Gun control is about statism, not public safety.  Crime statistics from areas with and without strong gun control make this obvious.

The problem with statist political leaders is that they often seem to believe the dumb rationales they offer the public for why it's necessary to give up freedoms and accept expansions of the sphere of state action in order to be free.

Is it outside the realm of possibility to think that those who want government to do something or another want to have them do it because they actually think that it will make a lot of people's lives better in some way?  Whether that be roads, military, coinage, or regulations? To accuse every government action as simply being about statism... About the growth of government influence in and of itself, is similar to stating that any attempt to reduce regulation is about expanding the plutocracy.

And I think most people would admit that crime is first and foremost a social and poverty problem, and deadly weapons are only secondary to those broader traits of a society. So countries with both very strict and very lax gun control can both be very peaceful or very violent, depending on several other factors.

In fact, maybe the term statist is simply overused:

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.

It looks like some of the most libertarian folks here would qualify as a subsection of statists called minarchists.

Looks like we're all statists... Unless there are any anarchists here.  Maybe Machine Ghost holds top honors.

[Pointedstick]

I would consider myself philosophically an anarchist, though I understand that in the world we live in, encouraging a move toward minarchism is a saner approach. Since I don't believe I will actually get to live in an anarchist society in my lifetime, I try first and foremost to follow Harry Browne's writings and find what freedom I can in an unfree world, but also politically I support reductions in state action that in isolation make sense to me. And for reductions in state action that only make sense when coupled with others (for example, simultaneous elimination of wage and price controls), I support them only when all will happen at once, to avoid terrible unintended consequences like the botched deregulation of the California energy market that led to market manipulation and skyrocketing prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... regulation

[moda0306]

PS,

Plenty of the things our government has done are insulting. I'm not in favor of confiscation of these guns, but I'm simply analyzing how crazy and unreasoned gun nuts are being. They are putting the 2nd amendment on a pedestal far, far above everything else and it's actually quite insulting to millions of Americans who were enslaved, drafted and died for their country, kicked off their land, not allowed to drink a damn beer when he got home from work, not being able to vote because of what you own, your color, or what gender you are, those taxed at 90% by the Feds, interned, etc, to say that now all of a sudden that we've gotten rid of most of those things, taking some guy's ar-15 is worthy of revolution because our government has become so tyrannical. Where were these people during all year other atrocities and affronts to our liberty?  I'm not saying they were responsible for them, but if I were 20 in 1969 I sure could have used some freedom loving Americans defending my liberty. All I would have had was some hippies.

Sorry that I made certain connections to the Civil Rights resistance.  This was unfair, as there have been plenty of small pockets of revolutionary types on sides that have had twisted expectations of the role of government and what an appropriate reaction is to the government when it crosses the line. It was stupid of me to pick out one group like that and try to connect them to the gun rights movement.

[Pointedstick]

Moda, you seem a little bitter, and I see a bit--just a bit--of a desire for collective punishment.

You guys didn't stand up for other oppressed Americans, so why should we stand up for you?

If I had been alive back then, I would have marched with King. I've been to gay pride parades. I am absolutely 100% pro-civil rights and freedom in every other place where it comes up. And nearly all of the gun owners I know feel similarly.

All those terrible restrictions you gave examples of were awful. Am I saying that banning AR-15s is as bad as forcing people to kill foreigners or lynching black people who drink from the wrong water fountain? No, of course not. What I'm saying is that acknowledging the weight of all of those historical injustices is no reason for downplaying efforts to impose new injustices--even ones you see as more minor--or even belittling efforts to fight those legislative efforts driven by fear and intolerance.

We have it great today. Let's keep it that way by rejecting stupid bans. Let's keep moving in the right direction, of empowering and freeing people, or trusting each other more, of making sure that we're not being motivated by hatred, fear, prejudice, or stereotypes.

[annieB]

Wonder if Washington wants to go first......give up their assault weapons? 

[moda0306]

PS,

I really am not bitter towards someone as professional as you are regarding debates. Bitter overall?  Well I guess maybe a bit.  I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not as bitter as some people who are ready for armed conflict over an assault weapons ban.

The funny thing is, I don't even think there should be confiscatory ban (whether new ones should be produced I still in my "debatable" category but I certainly have few strong feelings about it.  Heck I'd probably buy an ar-15 soon if they were more affordable.

I just hate the moral superiority of the gun rights people that are actually preaching revolution under the premise that we are losing long-held freedoms and becoming a tyrannical country. 

[MediumTex]

moda,

I was talking about gun control in my post about statism.

I'm sure the politicians believe that their reactionary gun control efforts will help things.  The fact that they won't is more a testament to the delusional quality of most politicians' thought processes than anything else.

[Pointedstick]

I just hate the moral superiority of the gun rights people that are actually preaching revolution under the premise that we are losing long-held freedoms and becoming a tyrannical country.

I find it to be a somewhat silly position, too. But every movement has its extremists. You know they're not really going to do anything, right? I mean, you can tell because they're the same people who balk at writing letters to politicians, don't attend rallies, and complain about donating a few bucks to lobbying organizations. If they can't even send an email or two or throw $10 to the NRA, do you really expect them to join a revolution? Of course not. It's just stupid machostic posturing. I see these guys on gun forums all the time, complaining about how futile it is to write their congressman because the sky is already falling and we'd better get ready for war! Then they hit "post" and don't do a darn thing.

I'd love to help you buy an AR-15, though. They're surprisingly affordable if you have even the remotest shred of mechanical skill. Here's what you need:

A lower receiver: http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx? ... roupid=214 ($80)

An upper receiver, stock, and lower receiver parts kit: http://www.del-ton.com/Rifle_Kit_p/rkt103.htm ($480)

A rear sight: http://www.midwestindustriesinc.com/ind ... ory_ID=234 ($55)


The lower receiver might be cheaper to buy in person because when you buy it from the internet, you have to get it shipped to a gun store and complete the transaction there, and at least here in CA, they charge a ridiculous amount of money for that. Maybe Minnesota is better.

But still, that's a complete rifle for about $650 after taxes and shipping. And you'll love it! AR-15s are really wonderful guns, tons of fun to shoot. They're lightweight, soft-recoiling, and infinitely customizable. They're like the Legos of the gun world!

[Benko]

And I think most people would admit that crime is first and foremost a social and poverty problem

I disagree, and I don't think most non-statists would agree with you. 
If crime is a societal and poverty problem, then people are not responsible for their acts, they are just victims and not to blame.  This is the quintisential progressive dogma, but I would argue invalid.  Lack of personal responsibility is epidemic these days and your world view and it's forced indoctrination via colleges is part of the problem.  Lack of morals plays a role, but if their is no right and wrong...

In fact, maybe the term statist is simply overused...
Looks like we're all statists

I have been wondering why so many of doodles posts go on and on about  the definitions of libertarianism.  Perhaps more than one of Modas posts as well, I don't remember.  Perhaps you don't like the connotations of being a statist so have to make us join the club as well.

[Pointedstick]

Benko, saying "it's a social and poverty problem" doesn't absolve people of responsibility for their actions. For example, maybe growing up in a broken family with no good role models, surrounded by violence and drug abuse predisposes one to have bad morals. You wouldn't be excusing any bad actions that people take from the result of those bad morals; simply trying to pinpoint their origin.

[MachineGhost]

This is a debate about what we as free people should do with the time and resources we have, or more specifically, what we have a moral justification in doing when confronted with some small or large dose of coercion or confiscation.  Nothing our government has done or condoned, whether it be slavery, draft, high taxes, regulations, limited use of "federal lands," Feds acquiring land in questionable manner, internment of Japanese, Feds controlling massively destructive technology, Feds controlling intellectual property or education or equality laws, and the list goes on... None of those things (well, maybe Civil Rights enforcement by the Feds post civil war and during the civil rights movement) have triggered such a violent threat from the "freedom fighters" now threatening we'll see 1776 again over confiscation of a certain class of weapons... Weapons that by the very assertion of their owners are "no more deadly than their less-scary looking rifles."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9iScByeLzM