[...] Stephen W. presents Virginia Tech and Gun Control posted at Project Paradox. [...]

That sounds nuttier than I think I am. Just speculating, just speculating.

Unfortunately, Nick, AdSense ads are determined automatically by Google’s algorithms. They’re pretty sophisticated, but it seems like they miss the mark on occasion.

Be well.

Will someone who is intent on killing necessarily be deterred by a lack of firearms? No, not all the time. However, it’s much more difficult to bring oneself to stab or bludgeon someone to death than to shoot them. Such actions require a focused and likely protracted effort, whereas pulling a trigger is a split-second decision. Taking away guns could very well see an increase in violent assault or attempted homicide, but I believe it would cause a decrease in overall successful homicide. It’s one of those “lesser of two evils” things. Would you rather be beaten and stabbed or shot and killed?

You are right, though. If we had more responsible gun owners, I might not oppose gun ownership. I’m sure you can agree that it’s a difficult issue with no easy answers. At any rate, let me know when you figure out a way to make gun owners more responsible and I might be on board.

P.S. Thanks for the wonderful debate. I’ve found it to be quite gratifying.

By all means. And I’m not criticizing, I’m just very curious and wanting to know more about your unique stance on the second.

I can understand the argument regarding facilitation. However, I think a disarmed public is a greater facilitator. When a person who would not otherwise commit a crime realizes that all his potential victims are unarmed and not capable of fighting back … I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.

But this idea falls into the fallacy of blaming the tool. A person intent on committing a crime is going to find a tool no matter what laws are in effect. And the person looking for “quick fix” can just as easily pick up the nearest axe, pipe or heavy branch.

The problem is not the tool but the person. And the solution is to make more responsible people, not ban tools.

Don’t ask me how to make more responsible people, though. I haven’t thought that one out yet.

Among his other findings, Kellerman discovered that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or a member of the household than an intruder. Homicides occurred almost five times more often, and suicides 37 times more often, than self-protection shootings. Even assuming some of the criticisms of Kellerman’s methodology were valid, I can’t bring myself to believe he was so far off from the truth in his findings. The fact is that guns in the home are more often used to hurt innocents than criminals.

Can I refute the facts that you mention? No, not directly. In fact, it seems like very sound evidence in support of your stance. However, I don’t believe that they’re telling the whole story. Gun regulation is by no means the only factor influencing the crime rate in England. Likewise, there could easily be more at work in Kennesaw, GA. Even if the law there has had the profound effect reported, I have to wonder, based on Kellerman’s evidence, what effect it has had on suicide rates and accidental shootings, neither of which would be reported as crime.

You say that, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The problem I have with that is that guns are dangerous facilitators. As Kellerman’s research demonstrates, ready access to guns causes people to turn to violent crime much more readily. In effect, it makes criminals out of people who might otherwise exercise restraint. As I’ve heard friends quip, Smith and Wesson designed the original “point and click” interface.

You are, of course, welcome to criticize me for my hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is that I do value one part of the Constitution over another. If I thought removing the Second Amendment were possible without compromising the First, I’d vote to that effect. The fact is, though, that we live in a democracy and making any revisions to the Bill of Rights would be dangerous. It allows people to say, “Well, while we’re making changes…,” and that’s not something I think should be allowed to happen.

Whatever the case, I believe we both have solid bases for our opinions. The fact of the matter is that we’ve thought it through and come to separate but equally valid conclusions. Shall we agree to disagree?

“It’s my personal opinion that (guns) cause more problems than they could ever prevent or solve, and that our country would be a safer place if owning and/or using them were as difficult as possible.”

That’s what they said in England. And now their crime rate is skyrocketing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

And as an example of the opposite, Kennesaw, GA, passed a law in 1982 requiring every head of household to own a gun and ammo. In one year’s time crime dropped 74 percent. http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

The problem is that regulating arms only prevents the folks who are already obeying the law from getting them. The folks who everyone needs to be worrying about having guns are criminals. And as criminals they are going to get their guns no matter what other laws we pass. It’s the oft-used “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” argument.

But while that argument is starting to sound a might cliché, it is entirely true. You have only to think of any of the other examples of prohibition in our history to see how true.

Also I wanted to touch on this quote:

“I warn against repealing the Second Amendment because I believe it would set a dangerous precedent, not because I believe in the right to bear arms.”

Personally, I think the more dangerous precedent is allowing folks to pass laws infringing upon a right while giving lip service to the “ultimate law” (i.e.- the Constitution) which is supposed to be protecting that same right.

Finally, I am extremely curious about that last sentence:

“Thus, it is most accurate to say I’m for the Second Amendment but against the right to bear arms. It’s a paradoxical stance, I realize, but one that I stand by.”

I would really like to hear more about what you have to say about this.

I do respect your opinion. At least right up until the point that you come to take away my gun or prevent me from legally obtaining another.

You are entirely correct in your assessment, Nick. I make no illusions of the fact that I’m holding a double standard. I believe guns should be regulated. It’s my personal opinion that they cause more problems than they could ever prevent or solve, and that our country would be a safer place if owning and/or using them were as difficult as possible. I used the funny hat suggestion only jokingly, of course, but it nonetheless demonstrates my pro-gun control attitude.

At the same time, I believe freedom of speech, religion, and the press are, and should remain, untouchable. I would protect the right to bear arms only as a way of protecting them vicariously. I warn against repealing the Second Amendment because I believe it would set a dangerous precedent, not because I believe in the right to bear arms. Thus, it is most accurate to say I’m for the Second Amendment but against the right to bear arms. It’s a paradoxical stance, I realize, but one that I stand by.

Whatever the case, there it is in a nutshell. For what it’s worth, I respect both of your opinions wholeheartedly and I hope you can do the same for mine. Thanks again for the great commentary.

<<Puts on his “Free Speech Nut” hat and salutes Nick>>