If gun control really is about sympathy for the victims

[Nuclear Unicorn]

why is there never any sympathy for those who defensively use their guns to NOT become victims? Do they only have moral value if they're raped, murdered, robbed and/or beaten?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. From another OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172170784

Pro-control is against guns because they just don't like guns. Everything else is just an excuse.

IMHO, many pro-control believe that:
-1 No one, gun owners, manufacturers, sellers, advertisers... anyone who profits from them, is doing enough to prevent murders, shootings and suicides. (Ignore the rhetoric of what should actually be done.)

-2 Gun design was intended first as a weapon. Unilateral and aggressive weapon use has injury or death as its objective.

-3 In general, design refinements to guns make them more effective as weapons. Weapons which demand less effort, less skill or provide a more ergonomic design making killing easier and faster. They see these as unacceptable goals and effects.

For these reasons (and likely others) some pro-control folks see that all of those groups mentioned in #1, above, must take a much greater role in (and responsibility for) firearm misuse including criminal activity.

[Lurks Often]

2. Don't see any sympathy from the gun control side for people murdered by other then a gun either

Apparently getting murdered with a knife, blunt object or bare hands isn't worth their attention or effort. At best that is hypocritical, at worst it is contemptible.

[pablo_marmol]

3. And if gun control was truly about sympathy for the victims........

......gun restriction proponents would be driven to educate themselves on all things relating to gun violence. They are not.

They would be intensely interested in what liberal criminologists who disagree with what completely ignorant talking heads have to say. They are not.

They would stop and scratch their heads upon discovering that gun violence has been dropping sharply while the number of the nation's guns has been increasing. They do not.

They would speak less. And read more. They would taunt less. And read more. They would sneer less. And read more.

They wouldn't be interested in the least about what "guns are designed to do" -- as they would recognize the obvious -- that emotion-baiting questions like this distract from more intelligent questions, such as: "How can we reduce the number of firearms that end up in criminal hands?" Or...."What are the holes in law enforcement data sharing that result in tragedies?"

They would actually be able to define what an "assault weapon" is. And once they could.....they would recognize that the angst surrounding these rifles is unfounded, and discontinue support for assinine bans.

They wouldn't lie about "bans" on research......then proceed to ignore what the researchers say when it conflicts with their talking points.

They wouldn't be solely focused on restricting guns as a "solution" to gun violence.

The list is truly endless.

[shadowrider]

4. Well, it would end at some point

[Shamash]

5. "Do they only have moral value if they're raped, murdered, robbed and/or beaten?"

It reminds me of what my wife says about some conservatives and children, they only care about them until they are born. To some of our gun controllers, a preventable death has no value unless that person can be made into a martyr for "the cause". When was the last time you saw someone who was padding "gun violence" figures with suicides show an equal amount of concern for stopping all the other suicides? Better mental health services and initiatives would not ban guns, so either they do not care or they criticize it as a pro-gun talking point.

Go figure.

[Matrosov]

6. While there is sympathy

The problem is the ones who defensively use their guns not to become victims are far, far, FAR outnumbered by the ones who offensively use their guns to make someone else a victim.

I'd have no problem with firearm ownership if 100% or even 75% of the shooting deaths/injuries were justified. Yet right now the people who use guns to threaten/injure/murder others far outnumber the ones who use guns to for the sake of self-protection.

[Shamash]

7. If only you could find a reality in which that was true

The CDC says at least as many people use firearms defensively as are used by criminals. So your statement to the contrary flies in the face of objective research on the subject.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

(link)
So, since your statement is demonstrably incorrect, that would mean you have no problem with firearm ownership now, right?

[Matrosov]

8. The problem is estimation

I've seen many of these estimates over the years. I think the highest was that there are 500,000 people who use guns defensively annually.

When we can't even agree on what amount of coffee is detrimental or beneficial to your health, I find it difficult to believe these numbers regarding firearm use in a defensive manner are anywhere near reality.

On the other hand, countries that severely restrict gun ownership - though as always I'd argue for an outright ban - seem to suffer from a lower crime rate and especially a far lower rate of gun deaths.

[Lurks Often]

9. THe US is ranked 108th out of 218 countries for intentional homicide rates worldwide

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

And 8th overall in total number of intentional homicides. The numbers are from 2012

The numbers do not seem to support your statement "countries that severely restrict gun ownership seem to suffer from a lower crime rate and especially a far lower rate of gun deaths.

Switzerland, with it's fairly liberal gun laws had a 0.6 murder rate and 46 murders overall

Jamaica, where it is virtually impossible for a citizen to own a gun, had a murder rate of 39.3 and 1,087 murders.

[Shamash]

10. No, it is not a problem of estimation

The CDC looked at all the studies it could find, from those with very low numbers to those with very high numbers. And after looking at all the surveys and studies with one presumes the competency of the CDC and its panel of outside experts on the subject of firearm violence, they made the statement I quoted above. You choosing not to accept that statement does not affect its validity.

And any argument in the form of "if we had less X we'd have less X-related problems" is not an argument, it is a tautology. We could cut down on auto accidents by banning cars, but that does not mean banning cars is a good thing.

And while you are working on your reply, make sure to reference the very strict anti-gun laws in Mexico, Jamaica and Honduras when compiling crime rates, murder rates in general or murders by guns. Saying that countries with strict gun laws have lower crime rates and lower gun deaths only works if you cherry pick the countries. In terms of firearm murders, the US ranks #15, in terms of all gun deaths we rank #13, and every country ahead of us on those lists has stricter gun control. In terms of our overall murder rate we rank #111, which means that more than 100 other countries manage to kill more people per capita than we do...despite having stricter gun laws. edit: Here is the link for international intentional homicides rates.

So clearly there are society factors independent of gun laws affect gun crime more strongly than the gun laws do. So if you wanted to make a real dent in the death total rather than just wanting to ban guns, you would work on the societal differences between places with low murder rates and high ones, and try to shift US attitudes more towards the former. You could also do the same within the US by comparing firearm murder rates between states and seeing what cultural differences there are. Vermont has a murder rate in general about the same as the UK, but with 30 times the per capita firearm ownership and extremely liberal firearm laws. Obviously, Vermont has something going for it that is independent of gun ownership and gun laws.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. If "estimates" are a problem how is it that you speak with such certainty that offenses

outnumber DGUs?

[MicaelS]

12. They hate guns with a passion.

Guns are evil, plain and simple. So you can't use evil to do good.

And they take the attitude that someone who uses a gun defensively is "taking the law into their own hands."

[AuntPatsy]

13. I can't help but recommend this, it's very true

[ileus]

14. Gun Control is about CONTROL....nothing else.

[Eleanors38]

15. From what I have seen from some controllers, it is more about taking advantage of tragedy...

We all have the capacity to feel compassion, however filtered in mass media and on the internet. But as has been documented in these threads, some controllers explicitly advocate swooping in fast and capitalizing on a tragedy in an effort to push their agenda. The queer thing about this phenomenon, is some equate vitriole and hate toward gun-owners with compassion, and yet accuse gun-owners of having no compassion, even demanding proper displays of regret, sadness, even shame when little is exhibited by the controllers themselves.

Why would anyone publically waltz to the tune of sadness in a farcical and contrived amosphere like what was seen here after Charleston?