Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on April 18, 2011, 06:57:27 am
-
I have always been slightly fascinated by Americans activively persuing their right to be able to shoot someone in the face at all times. Considering that many people here are Americans and/or have (once been able to / enabled others to accurately) shoot things (which may or may not include people), I am interested in your views on this subject, and i'd like some background information as well.
-
I'm more fascinated by Switzerland's fascination with guns and shooting things. Shooting is their national pastime, apparently. Aren't they supposed to be pacifists? And yet most of the population has guns, and the country itself has compulsory military service. Maybe that's why no one wants to go to war with them.
As for Americans, it probably has something to do with the idea that we asserted our freedom with guns during the Revolutionary War, and so we'd like to hold on to them in case we need to assert our freedom and/or protect our property/family.
-
You sound like one of them communists! Why do you hate freedom so much? Gur'back 'ta RUSHA!
Seriously though, this is indeed a peculiarity of American society. When you think about how many gun accidents happen each year, be it injuries, negligent homicides, and homicide with mitigating factors, like you shooting someone who just wanted your wallet, it becomes a very moot issue, morality-wise. I think of all countries, America is the one country that SHOULDN'T have weapons circulating among its citizens, seeing how paranoid Americans are. And yeah, I know not all Americans are paranoid, but it's an intrinsic part of their society. They got it right with the pepper spray and tazers, though. Those, of course, aren't allowed here in Scandinavia, which is a shame for those who have to live in our capital cities.
-
I'm more fascinated by Switzerland's fascination with guns and shooting things. Shooting is their national pastime, apparently. Aren't they supposed to be pacifists? And yet most of the population has guns, and the country itself has compulsory military service. Maybe that's why no one wants to go to war with them.
As for Americans, it probably has something to do with the idea that we asserted our freedom with guns during the Revolutionary War, and so we'd like to hold on to them in case we need to assert our freedom and/or protect our property/family.
I cant speak for America but i believe in Switzerland there is required national service and reservist period afterwards during which former soldiers are required to keep an issued weapon at their home, i also believe it is these weapons behind most murders resulting from domestic disputes.
edit
forgot to mention that they are not pacifists, but a nation with a tradition of international neutrality which they will protect by force if necessary, (at one point i believe all bridges into the country were rigged to blow
-
Gun suicides way outnumber gun homicides (which is not an argument, just (iirc) a fact).
-
The reason they want to be armed, is to be able to succesfully resist and overthrow illegal or unconstitutional governments. It's a safeguard for if a tyranny managed to take control of the country's government. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights and Constitution weren't genius, i think, but rather just learned from what has happened in Europe many times before the American revolution.
In the case of Switzerland it's somewhat the same, and you notice it hasn't been attacked (Also has to do with geography and the mastery of guerilla tactics). What Headdie says is correct though, it's not as free as in the USA - It's part of the national service part, so they can organise defenses quickly and organise guerilla efforts.
Illegal guns here in the Netherlands didnt stop the dozens of assasinations, murders and shootings the past ten years. Criminals always manage to get guns, somehow.
-
You sound like one of them communists! Why do you hate freedom so much? Gur'back 'ta RUSHA!
Seriously though, this is indeed a peculiarity of American society. When you think about how many gun accidents happen each year, be it injuries, negligent homicides, and homicide with mitigating factors, like you shooting someone who just wanted your wallet, it becomes a very moot issue, morality-wise. I think of all countries, America is the one country that SHOULDN'T have weapons circulating among its citizens, seeing how paranoid Americans are. And yeah, I know not all Americans are paranoid, but it's an intrinsic part of their society. They got it right with the pepper spray and tazers, though. Those, of course, aren't allowed here in Scandinavia, which is a shame for those who have to live in our capital cities.
Ah geez better eliminate booze and smoking as well, I mean if were going to talk about ridding ourselves of health concerns...
-
The reason they want to be armed, is to be able to succesfully resist and overthrow illegal or unconstitutional governments. It's a safeguard for if a tyranny managed to take control of the country's government.
Of course that's the rationale, but considering today's difference in civilian and military weaponry and other resources, the civilians wouldn't be able to overthrow such a government anyway. The best you'd get would be a big bunch of insurgents with lots of guns, and I guess we know how well such a situation tends to turn out for everyone involved.
Safeguards are good, but that one isn't really an effective one anymore.
-
You sound like one of them communists! Why do you hate freedom so much? Gur'back 'ta RUSHA!
Seriously though, this is indeed a peculiarity of American society. When you think about how many gun accidents happen each year, be it injuries, negligent homicides, and homicide with mitigating factors, like you shooting someone who just wanted your wallet, it becomes a very moot issue, morality-wise. I think of all countries, America is the one country that SHOULDN'T have weapons circulating among its citizens, seeing how paranoid Americans are. And yeah, I know not all Americans are paranoid, but it's an intrinsic part of their society. They got it right with the pepper spray and tazers, though. Those, of course, aren't allowed here in Scandinavia, which is a shame for those who have to live in our capital cities.
Ah geez better eliminate booze and smoking as well, I mean if were going to talk about ridding ourselves of health concerns...
Problem is, booze and smoking allows you to kill YOURSELF. And while they can influence your behavior in a negative way, they're not designed to kill other people. Guns are, and that's what they routinely do.
I don't think Americans should have access to firearms like this. They have their second amendment, sure, but I really don't think the founding fathers foresaw the appearance of handguns, automatic rifles, and heavy machine guns. That is to say, their support of the second amendment was based on how guns were back then; Largely inaccurate, slow, and cumbersome. They can stand against tyranny all they want; they have the biggest military in the world, and they have what they think is a democracy, so what's the need for guns?
-
I have always been slightly fascinated by Americans activively persuing their right to be able to shoot someone in the face at all times. Considering that many people here are Americans and/or have (once been able to / enabled others to accurately) shoot things (which may or may not include people), I am interested in your views on this subject, and i'd like some background information as well.
Guns have been a big deal to Americans for a long time, going back before the revolutionary war when the majority of the population was subsistence farmers and hunters/trappers, as opposed to the more urbanized/wage labor type population in Europe. Simply put a "frontier culture" arose in the United States and an important part of this culture was owning a gun. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Origins_of_gun_culture) as always has more information. It's not just what the Founding Fathers wanted, there was great practical use to owning a gun in early America. Also, penis.
The Constitution doesn't necessarily guarantee individual gun ownership. The amendment in question reads,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So it's not clear what is meant by "the people" or if only a "well regulated militia" can own guns, but this amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court under the individual rights interpretation which allows personal gun ownership. In any case an argument based on the constitution is silly because the drafters realized that the United States might be a very different society 200 years into the future and had the foresight allow amendments to the constitution. The Second Amendment doesn't allow private ownership of tanks or nuclear weapons, though, which would be more useful today if you're trying to overthrow tyranny.
-
Illegal guns here in the Netherlands didnt stop the dozens of assasinations, murders and shootings the past ten years. Criminals always manage to get guns, somehow.
Although getting guns illegally used to be a lot more expensive then getting them legally ($2500 as opposed to $450 for a glock pistol Source:NRC Handelsblad), there is a rising case of criminals changing so called 'alarm guns' (which only make loud noise) into actual lethal weapons.
-
You sound like one of them communists! Why do you hate freedom so much? Gur'back 'ta RUSHA!
Seriously though, this is indeed a peculiarity of American society. When you think about how many gun accidents happen each year, be it injuries, negligent homicides, and homicide with mitigating factors, like you shooting someone who just wanted your wallet, it becomes a very moot issue, morality-wise. I think of all countries, America is the one country that SHOULDN'T have weapons circulating among its citizens, seeing how paranoid Americans are. And yeah, I know not all Americans are paranoid, but it's an intrinsic part of their society. They got it right with the pepper spray and tazers, though. Those, of course, aren't allowed here in Scandinavia, which is a shame for those who have to live in our capital cities.
Ah geez better eliminate booze and smoking as well, I mean if were going to talk about ridding ourselves of health concerns...
Problem is, booze and smoking allows you to kill YOURSELF. And while they can influence your behavior in a negative way, they're not designed to kill other people. Guns are, and that's what they routinely do.
I don't think Americans should have access to firearms like this. They have their second amendment, sure, but I really don't think the founding fathers foresaw the appearance of handguns, automatic rifles, and heavy machine guns. That is to say, their support of the second amendment was based on how guns were back then; Largely inaccurate, slow, and cumbersome. They can stand against tyranny all they want; they have the biggest military in the world, and they have what they think is a democracy, so what's the need for guns?
Tell that to someone run over by a ****tard that's DUI . In the grand scheme of things arguing that firearms are bad because they kill people is a moot point when alcohol claims three times as many lives and smoking kills off about the same in a month as guns in a year. Plus I dunno maybe in the boonies it's different but people around here aren't exactly driving around in F-150s with M2 Brownings on pintle mounts. Automatic rifles and heavy machine guns are not exactly street legal; America isn't exactly downtown Mogadishu :P
-
(http://www.infer.cognita.co.uk/AdvHTML_Upload/firearms%20death%20by%20country%20%20gun%20ownership%20bar%20graph%20April09.JPG)
Just sayin...
-
I am 100% pro gun rights. ask me anything.
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Wrong.
That is indeed a quote from the second amendment to the US Constitution, part of the amendments called the Bill of Rights, and it reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please do note the comma that everyone so loves to omit. (Not saying you did it on purpose).
EDIT: And Mustang, I'd love to see how many of those countries listed above the United States in that graph have banned the personal ownership of firearms. I haven't checked it out, but I'm curious. ;)
-
Please do note the comma that everyone so loves to omit. (Not saying you did it on purpose).
You are quoting the one passed by congress, I am quoting the one ratified by state legislatures.
-
I am 100% pro gun rights. ask me anything.
No thank you. If you base gun ownership on rights rather than trying to prevent people from getting killed then we have different values.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-4) > http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
And if you want to see what the states themselves say:
http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html
-
I am 100% pro gun rights. ask me anything.
No thank you. If you base gun ownership on rights rather than trying to prevent people from getting killed then we have different values.
Oh, Im pretty sure we do :)
-
jr2 is a winrar.
Okay Topgun, what do you think of private ownership of antitank missiles and 50 cals? I mean really, the only use for those kinds of weapons would be to overthrow a tyrannical government.
-
jr2 is a winrar.
No, I'm an Everything (http://www.voidtools.com/).
-
Okay Topgun, what do you think of private ownership of antitank missiles and 50 cals? I mean really, the only use for those kinds of weapons would be to overthrow a tyrannical government.
I think its crazy. Like you said, the only legitimate use use is to overthrow a government, at that point I don't think it matters if they are illegal or not.
-
True that.. if the government needs to be overthrown, you wouldn't exactly worry about following it's laws.
-
not to debate rights at all but i must point out that there are really two schools of thought on the whole gun ownership thing. you have the urbanite view that "guns protect us from criminals" and the rural "guns put meat in the freezer" view. the types of guns owned by either are rather specific, you wouldn't always see an urbanite carrying a shotgun, and handguns are somewhat useless to a hunter. not to say that you want see a handgun on my inlaws' gun rack. pistols are useful for putting down meat that doesn't die immediately, of course a second shot from the rifle works. maybe youre going fishing in the woods and need to keep the bears from eating you / stealing your catch and dont want to carry a heavy rifle in addition to your fishing gear. i cant understand why anyone in a city would want a shotgun or a scoped rifle, i guess shotguns can breach doors or work as a terror weapon, and a scoped rifle is good for assassinations. cant really come up with a leagal, non-law-enforcement reason to have them in the city. in that scenario you want a pistol of sorts, can be used in close quarters and are easily concealed. as for me, guns put nearly 100 pounds of meat in my freezer last year.
as for the second amendment, i cant see any reason why we need militias anymore. we cannot turn the government with hand guns and hunting rifles. unless we amend it to allow us to carry tanks and nukes. id love to have my own nuclear device. i could just set it off when im feeling depressed. that would be kinda cool. of course id have to get my parking space widened to park my abrams. perhaps we need to limit people to owning weapons that were available when the second amendment was amended. i can hunt with a long rifle. criminals will have to go back to knife fighting.
-
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.
-
Nuke, again, its because at least in the USA, guns have more use than just against criminals and hunting, as stated earlier - It's about protecting from a illegal or tyrannical government. Sort of a last weapon if the democratic and republic processes have been rendered useless and/or peaceful revolution is made impossible.
Given what we see in the Middle East, where peaceful protects are met with violence and crackdowns, and where the only ones armed are either the Rebels or Government Loyalists - the proverbial rock and a hard place - causing the population to be constantly dependant on who the new boss becomes in their peaceful town, instead of fighting both of them off? Granted, I don't know if this would be a better alternative, but it feels like it beats the whole destabilisation and constant war between two halves of one country that we've been seeing a lot the last 20ish years or so.
-
Very few people are killed with assault rifles in the United States every year. Handguns and to a lesser extent shotguns are the real murder weapons.
-
Very few people are killed with assault rifles in the United States every year. Handguns and to a lesser extent shotguns are the real murder weapons.
That could be (and probably is) because assault rifles are illegal in most (if not all) states.
-
Only if purchased after 1979. Any before then were grandfathered in. For example, my dad knows a guy who served in WWII and has a fully functional M2 Browning, legally acquired as surplus in the late 50s. It's still legal.
-
I'd also probably say that full assault rifles are harder to obtain, legally or illegally, than handguns. My state of California has some pretty strict regulations on handgun ownership but those don't seem to stop gangs from being armed.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
:wtf:
Yeah, no it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, gun ownership (and the attitudes related to it) in the US is (are) balls-to-the-wall, **** smearing crazy. I've heard all the arguments and none of them hold water for me. Honestly, it's treated like a slightly tragic joke over here.
-
Nuke, again, its because at least in the USA, guns have more use than just against criminals and hunting, as stated earlier - It's about protecting from a illegal or tyrannical government. Sort of a last weapon if the democratic and republic processes have been rendered useless and/or peaceful revolution is made impossible.
Given what we see in the Middle East, where peaceful protects are met with violence and crackdowns, and where the only ones armed are either the Rebels or Government Loyalists - the proverbial rock and a hard place - causing the population to be constantly dependant on who the new boss becomes in their peaceful town, instead of fighting both of them off? Granted, I don't know if this would be a better alternative, but it feels like it beats the whole destabilisation and constant war between two halves of one country that we've been seeing a lot the last 20ish years or so.
if it ever came down to america's population vs america's military, it is quite obvious who will win. allowing for militias and allowing the public to bear arms let people police their local communities and protect themselves from hostile indigenous populations and of course brittish infiltration. it was a young country and we needed the militias at the time to survive until we had managed to develop proper police and military forces. that need has passed. and while i think we should keep the right to bear arms, it no longer holds the meaning it once did. if the us government did go tyrannical there would be very little the people could do to stop it unless we were allowed access to the same weapons the military had.
if something like what happened in lybia happens here, there are probably enough guns in public circulation to manage a costly guerrilla campaign. while the right to bear arms clause seems to be followed nay worshiped by a great many americans, almost nobody runs a regulated and organized militia anymore. you would of course see new ones form up. you might see parts of the military breaking away to support the citizens. of course they can just turn around and nuke cities if they feel threatened. point is i see less practicality for us needing militias than i do for us to own guns. at least guns put meat in the freezer.
-
I feel "Militia" at some point became the National Guard, etc. So although you can run and maintain a militia, it is really a pretty silly notion.
The right to bear arms themselves is something I genuinely feel should not be removed from the populace - the arguments for and against this are a mile long, but ultimately I feel that enabling the populace with the ability to fend for and provide for itself at some level more than oughtweighs negative consequences. Ultimately, a free society must practice self-regulation within the individual - when that fails, the government will attempt to provide regulation. When everything fails, anarchy ensues.
I'll close with this: remember that when a government removes arms from the populace, the populace needn't worry about travesties being committed with arms not being committed anymore - the government will do that for them.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
:wtf:
Yeah, no it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, gun ownership (and the attitudes related to it) in the US is (are) balls-to-the-wall, **** smearing crazy. I've heard all the arguments and none of them hold water for me. Honestly, it's treated like a slightly tragic joke over here.
Joke's on you during the zombieocalpyse.
-
making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals from using them. it does, however, prevent a law-abiding citizen from using one to defend him/herself. it is ABSOLUTELY my right to defend myself. i don't see what is so damn hard to understand about this, or why people like to just ignore this argument.
let me know how that taser works out when someone has a gun and intends to use it. maybe i still don't make it, but at least it's not because the government took away my chance.
sidenote, shotguns are a pretty common and effective home defense weapon. not completely pointless in an urban setting.
second sidenote, why did this even come up? little too boring around here lately?
-
It seems to me that needing guns to defend yourself from your elected government is a weak argument. I would think that in a democracy, if you have to defend yourself from the government, you've done something wrong. Like supported bad policies with your vote.
Plus, I thought people who shot at American soldiers were bad guys and terrorists. If american citizens are shooting at their own soldiers wouldn't that make them terrorists and bad guys?
If the American government turns against the american people, then the american people would support its actions. Look at how the middle class votes against its own best interests. Any oppression and loss of freedom would be called "Security For Freedom" or "The Free American's Patriotic Legislation" or something and everyone would buy it up as necessary measures in tough economic times. The government wouldn't just flat out say "we're going to oppress you now"
In Canada our current Prime Minister decided that because of the economic slump, we needed to take drastic measure. So they started selling off historic landmarks and shutting down government websites that helped women deal with prejudice in the workplace. These measures did nothing in terms of economic stimulus or cutting costs, yet everyone I talked to seemed to think it was necessary in these "tough times".
-
Evidence on Gun Bans and Murder Rates: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4vruXcVfjv-NGE5ZTkxMjQtOGQwZS00YmZiLTgzYjQtOGMwOWQ5ZjVmZmVj&hl=en
Fatal Car Accident Statistics: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html
Homicide statistics by state: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AovruXcVfjv-dE1pVkIxUWtiRXZoSzZHSDBUYTFZa1E&hl=en
(spreadsheet by me based on data from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm)
Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624
Countries which ban guns (specifically handguns) typically have a higher murder rate using them.
Lessons learned? Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
I personally believe (if you haven't already gathered this) that because of human nature, banning guns is largely ineffective. Conversely, not banning guns is also largely ineffective. The best use for civilian gun ownership is sport shooting.
-
Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624
Countries which ban guns (specifically handguns) typically have a higher murder rate using them.
Lessons learned? Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
I personally believe (if you haven't already gathered this) that because of human nature, banning guns is largely ineffective. Conversely, not banning guns is also largely ineffective. The best use for civilian gun ownership is sport shooting.
I also remember seeing an article somewhere about how the rate of violent crime in Florida dropped after they adopted concealed carry laws, despite the predictions of the ban all guns everywhere crowd.
Personally, I'm in favor of concealed-carry laws for handguns, but I think there should be more regulations/training in order to get a permit. I believe a person has a right to defend themself from a mugger, burglar, etc., and a handgun and the training to use it is one of the best defenses in those situations. However, there are also a lot of idiots out there who I wouldn't trust with a gun. That's why I think there should be a fairly rigorous training program for getting a permit to make sure they know how to handle a gun w/out hurting themself or a bystander.
-
Wasn't there some evidence about Arizona's open-carry and some other town's open-carry bringing gun crimes to an all-time low? Yeah, it's late, and I don't want to go looking it up right now. I could be totally wrong.
-
making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals from using them. it does, however, prevent a law-abiding citizen from using one to defend him/herself. it is ABSOLUTELY my right to defend myself. i don't see what is so damn hard to understand about this, or why people like to just ignore this argument.
let me know how that taser works out when someone has a gun and intends to use it. maybe i still don't make it, but at least it's not because the government took away my chance.
sidenote, shotguns are a pretty common and effective home defense weapon. not completely pointless in an urban setting.
second sidenote, why did this even come up? little too boring around here lately?
a taser could also cause the gun in the other guys hand to go off, which is most likely pointing at you at the time. electricity has a way to cause muscles to contract involuntarily.
as for shotguns there are exceptions to any rule. i merely make the point that in close quarters engagements in an urban setting usually the preference is for shorter barreled weapons, though that does not prevent a shotgun from being used, its just not the preferable weapon.
-
Check out how many crimes are committed by licensed handgun owners in Texas
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
-
Two more things:
First, that the people who commit murders with guns are a minority of the gun-owning population of any nation that allows civilian gun ownership. Like anything else, it's a few whackos giving the rest a bad name.
Second, that no one today really knows how to set up a "well-regulated" militia for the purpose of overthrowing an oppressive government in today's age of modern warfare. Here's how I think it might work:
1. [Prerequisite] Own a large corporation with the power (money) to build/buy aircraft, heavy weaponry, private fortresses/airstrips, and all the other trappings of modern warfare.
2. Start building/buying all that stuff.
3a. Require compulsory "security training" for all able employees, but offer incentives such as free housing or tax-free income (we're overthrowing the government, so there's no need to pay taxes).
3b. Use propaganda to brainwash all employees and their families.
4. If government tries to stop you, fight back (i.e. let them strike first).
5. Surprise attack Washington, bombing capitol building, White House (or wherever the Prez is), and Pentagon (taking out NORAD (if possible) might also be a good idea)
6. Now that the federal government has been attacked from within the nation, chaos will ensue and the states will eventually try to form their own governments to deal with the chaos of revolution. Therefore...
7. [Optional] Unify the states under a new government.
A few anti-government zealots aren't going to overthrow anything. In order to overthrow an oppressive government, a group must (temporarily) have near total control over a lot of money and a lot of people, but must then be willing to give up that control once the oppressive government is overthrown in order to prevent becoming just another oppressive government. Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way; people in power will always try to stay in power. No corporation is ever going to gain control over a lot of people, overthrow one government, set up a new government, and then just release control over those people.
-
I don't specifically know about how Arizona's laws affected the crime rates, but for most states, the violent crime rates dropped following introduction of concealed carry. I will admit though, that their laws on guns, or lack thereof, are kinda ridiculous. Pretty much anyone without a criminal record, no matter how incompetent and potentially dangerous to themselves or others, can buy a handgun and carry it around in their coat pocket. Like I said before, I think there needs to be some sort of training program before you can carry a concealed handgun around in public.
As for Texas, what percentage of the population have concealed carry permits? Comparing the conviction rates for concealed carry permit holders to those of the general population is the only way to give those stats much meaning. If permit holders represent only .5% of the convictions, but only make up 1% of the population (just pulling that out of my ass, since I don't have any numbers in front of me on the # of permit holders), that's not saying much. Though for Texas, I'd imagine that permit holders make up a larger percentage than in other states.
-
Eh, just regulate guns like you regulate cars.
1) Attend required gun safety courses
2) Pass written gun safety/operating tests
3) Pass classroom gun safety/operating test
4) Register every single weapon
5) Own only guns that you're licensed to own (i.e. you have to get separate licenses for handguns, shotguns, rifles)
6) Renew your gun license every few years
7) If you commit a crime using your gun, you're ineligible to ever own one again
You can arm an entire population and watch crime drop, but that's still not a good thing. It's like saying the period between 1945 and 1991 was a golden age of peace between the US and USSR just because they never directly went to war.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.
Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.
Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.
Um . . . I can see arguing that they're almost as effective. . . but honestly, I don't see spraying someone in the face with pepper spray preventing them from shooting me.
IDK about statistics, but tactically speaking, you can't get a lot better than rapid hemmhoraging.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.
Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.
Um . . . I can see arguing that they're almost as effective. . . but honestly, I don't see spraying someone in the face with pepper spray preventing them from shooting me.
IDK about statistics, but tactically speaking, you can't get a lot better than rapid hemmhoraging.
Pepper spray turns people blind, thus preventing people from shooting you. :D. The problem with rapid hemmhoraging is that there have been several issues where the hemmorhaging simply was not fast enough. People do not instantly die when hit by bullets. Some of them don't even notice, and stay able for 5 minutes untill colapsing from the blood loss. 5 minutes is long enough to riddle you with bullets.
-
Last time I checked, though, being blind doesn't prevent one from shooting fairly straight ahead. :p
-
Last time I checked, though, being blind doesn't prevent one from shooting fairly straight ahead. :p
Exactly. Although a bullet won't kill instantly, if you really need someone to NOT be able to pull their trigger, I'd trust a couple .45 rounds (hollowpoint if you please) over a taser, beanbag, pepperspray or laserblinder.
I'm not getting involved in the discussion of whether or not US gun laws makes sense. Only that non-lethal alternatives are NOT more effective at ending an attack.
EDIT:
As far as sourcing; nearly every military, police force, and private security firm in the world use guns as a final line of defense (when their attackers are using guns) non-lethal alternatives are used when their attackers are in a weaker position.
-
if your life is on the line, you go for your best weapon. taser might be useful if a guy comes at you with a knife or a club. guy comes at you with a gun, the last thing you want to do is cause involuntary muscle contractions with an electric shock, the gun could go off. also you do not put the fear of being killed in the guy with the gun. the cop does not have that luxury. simple rule of thumb, dont bring a taser to a gun fight.
-
And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.
-
And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.
How about like the time a guy yelled out of a car at me, than pulled alongside and pulled a gun? Although I'm clearly still alive, that's really only because he didn't feel like pulling the trigger that day.
-
And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.
How about like the time a guy yelled out of a car at me, than pulled alongside and pulled a gun? Although I'm clearly still alive, that's really only because he didn't feel like pulling the trigger that day.
So you're saying that you'd have been more likely to survive if you had pulled a gun back at him? :rolleyes: Yeah, I bet.
-
And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.
sometimes that may be the case, and it's on the victim to use his own judgement on how to react. but as a general rule, that is just NOT true. it doesn't always have to be an attacker with a gun either. maybe a group of thugs feel like jumping you and beating on you. someone tries to mug you with a knife. etc.
-
putting a bullet through the head of a criminal > getting your **** horked your ass killed or your ego crushed.
i know which i would pick.
-
Always expecting and preparing for someone to rob/hurt/kill you sounds just a wee bit paranoid to me. I pretty much managed to get over 30 without ever having a weapon pulled on me, being mugged, or generally being in that type of a life threatening situation. I got there unarmed, and never once felt like I needed to get a weapon to feel safer. But that's just little ol' me.. I suppose it depends on where you live. The topic is about gun ownership in the US so my experiences on the subject probably aren't applicable.
-
im just not a big fan of this idea that you should just submit to the bad guy.
it makes you a target
it empowers the criminal to do it again
it does not remove the criminal from society
and it does not guarantee your survival
-
That's definitely one side of an argument, and valid. Of course another side of the argument is me also not liking the idea of the general population being armed and expecting them to exercise proper judgment on when is it justified the use a lethal weapon. Yes, that guy in your backyard could be here to kill you, set your dog on fire, rape your wife and daughter, then flip them over and go for seconds. Or he could just be here to ask for directions or simply has the wrong house because he's coming to visit someone he's never been at before. Someone who spent their whole life expecting the worst and has the arsenal to prove it is less likely to try and make that determination before putting a bullet in that person's head.
Hell I don't feel too comfortable around armed policemen, but at least they have some training and oversight on the justified use of lethal force.
In general, if you don't have very good training on the use of weapons and self-defense (and most people don't) it's probably safer to submit to a robber, as trying to fight back will probably end up in you being hurt, not the robber. We could discuss how ideally everyone would have proper training, but then we could just skip that step and say ideally nobody would ever rob anyone and guns wouldn't be needed. Neither is unfortunately the case.
-
putting a bullet through the head of a criminal > getting your **** horked your ass killed or your ego crushed.
i know which i would pick.
I would say
putting a bullet through the head of a criminal < ego crushed
It's better than being so proud that you'd rather kill someone than look weak.
-
And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.
sometimes that may be the case, and it's on the victim to use his own judgement on how to react. but as a general rule, that is just NOT true.
Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?
-
The reason they want to be armed, is to be able to succesfully resist and overthrow illegal or unconstitutional governments. It's a safeguard for if a tyranny managed to take control of the country's government.
Of course that's the rationale, but considering today's difference in civilian and military weaponry and other resources, the civilians wouldn't be able to overthrow such a government anyway. The best you'd get would be a big bunch of insurgents with lots of guns, and I guess we know how well such a situation tends to turn out for everyone involved.
Safeguards are good, but that one isn't really an effective one anymore.
Remember that there will be lots of soldiers who joined the military to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to take them away. An army of 100 million guerrillas with hunting rifles and revolvers supported by 100 000 regulars who defected will be far more a threat to any regime than just the group of 100 000 defectors.
For personal defense, get a TASER. They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.
Tasers and pepper spray don't always work.
When electrocuted, guy asks cops: "That's all you got?"
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/man_hit_by_police_taser_thats.html
Tasered, guy stands up and continues to fight:
http://www.wehodaily.com/2011/04/16/man-tazered-fighting-deputies/
There's probably a lot more of these situations. If anyone has any statistics, feel free to post 'em.
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624
Here's another little something:
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
(...)
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
Sure there are statistics against owning crimes such as 2/3 murders being committed with guns, but I think the stuff quoted is enough an argument to prove 'an armed society is a polite society'.
if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back
Tell that to rape victims.
They did the right thing because they didn't kill the offender. Their ego might be broken, but it's better to be weak than to kill someone.
P.S.:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html
-
Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
There's not much conclusive evidence either way in the debate but here's a CDC study showing that quite a few people pull guns in self-defense. Not quite what you are asking for but guns are useful as a deterrent if nothing else.
To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.
-
if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back
Tell that to rape victims.
Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.
-
Wow, BengalTiger, way to drag an intelligent discussion down.
How about backing up and trying again.
-
Personally, I'm in favor of concealed-carry laws for handguns, but I think there should be more regulations/training in order to get a permit. I believe a person has a right to defend themself from a mugger, burglar, etc., and a handgun and the training to use it is one of the best defenses in those situations. However, there are also a lot of idiots out there who I wouldn't trust with a gun. That's why I think there should be a fairly rigorous training program for getting a permit to make sure they know how to handle a gun w/out hurting themself or a bystander.
+1
That used to be the responsibility of the family... sort of how you didn't used to have to get a driver's licence (long before our time) because your parents would teach you and when they thought you were ready they would let you drive.
-
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)
Hey guys check out this table at the bottom of the page and all the "insufficient evidence" entries.
There's really no proof that gun control accomplishes anything, either to reduce or encourage crime. So have fun arguing over pinheads on angels or whatever.
-
if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back
Tell that to rape victims.
Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.
OK, let me break it down barney-style for you. If you give them what you want... you might end up holding your ankles while staring at your drawers. No likee? Maybe shoulda grabbed your gun, called the cops if you had time, and told the scary man you were going to paint the wall with his head if he didn't beat it.
-
if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back
Tell that to rape victims.
Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.
OK, let me break it down barney-style for you. If you give them what you want... you might end up holding your ankles while staring at your drawers. No likee? Maybe shoulda grabbed your gun, called the cops if you had time, and told the scary man you were going to paint the wall with his head if he didn't beat it.
Well I'm still very confused as to why should anyone give a rapist what they want? I mean, did someone somewhere say one should, or something?
-
Yeah cause a rapist comes in and with a big sign that says "I'm not after your money, I want your ass."... No, they say nobody's gonna hurt you, just do what I say... you know the rest. They aren't stupid. They will get you under their complete control and then do what they want. Unless they are overconfident. Because they know if you think they are going to rape you, you might get desperate. If you think they just want your money, you might just give it to them.
-
This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.
Can we pick a less asinine example please
-
Yeah I hear if we take particular cases and then build entire arguments on them it makes for really good discussion
How about we, like, cite studies and broad statistics instead.
Like the frequency of gun use in self defense like I mentioned earlier.
Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
There's not much conclusive evidence either way in the debate but here's a CDC study showing that quite a few people pull guns in self-defense. Not quite what you are asking for but guns are useful as a deterrent if nothing else.
To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.
-
(http://www.infer.cognita.co.uk/AdvHTML_Upload/firearms%20death%20by%20country%20%20gun%20ownership%20bar%20graph%20April09.JPG)
Just sayin...
When most if the countries ahead of the USA are developing countries, and every other western countries are lower then the USA based on every 100,000 people that tells you something. Gun control saves lives, no contest. Yes, I agree, guns are useful to defend yourself. But by making guns highly difficult to acquire, you make it harder and far more dangerous for criminals to have guns.
Cop in most other western countries sees guy with a gun, arrested. Cop in some states sees a guy with gun, does nothing until that gun is pulled and shot at someone.
If anything, there should be tighter regulation on guns then currently exists in the states.
Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but a cop came into our class the other day, and all of us were floored by the fact that she carried a gun. I have seen a gun, maybe twice in my life. I've never met anyone who has been involved as a victim or a relative of a victim, with the SINGLE exception of an American who moved here. He had a relative in the states who was a victim of gun crime. Gun control saves lives its that simple
-
Drogoth, sure, guns are rare in France and Britain, so gang members have fewer of them. That just means those gang members will use other weapons besides guns when they commit violent acts. What we need to check is to see if banning guns reduces total violence rather than just gun violence.
-
The question is whether or not gun control would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals in any substantial way. As stated in the CDC study there's no conclusive proof that gun control reduces crime. This makes concealed carry and private gun ownership a really sensible idea if the number of people who deter a crime by drawing a weapon is 20-40 times greater than the total number of gun homicides in the US.
Want an example of a country with tight gun control and even higher homicide rates than the US? No problem. Taiwan or Estonia (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html), although it's hard to make comparisons because even non-gun homicides in the US are very high. Note that prior to implementing gun control the UK for example already (http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_katesreal.html#h7.2) had a much lower murder rate than the US, so that's a confound.
So you can't simply say, "A lot of people die in Country X because it doesn't have gun control". Large scale studies show that gun control has little effect either way on homicide.
-
The question is whether or not gun control would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals in any substantial way. As stated in the CDC study there's no conclusive proof that gun control reduces crime. This makes concealed carry and private gun ownership a really sensible idea if the number of people who deter a crime by drawing a weapon is 20-40 times greater than the total number of gun homicides in the US.
Want an example of a country with tight gun control and even higher homicide rates than the US? No problem. Taiwan or Estonia (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html), although it's hard to make comparisons because even non-gun homicides in the US are very high. Note that prior to implementing gun control the UK for example already (http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_katesreal.html#h7.2) had a much lower murder rate than the US, so that's a confound.
So you can't simply say, "A lot of people die in Country X because it doesn't have gun control". Large scale studies show that gun control has little effect either way on homicide.
You posted a chart on Gun Related Homicide. I wont deny that some countries with tighter gun control have a higher murder rate, but let's get serious. Those countries you mentioned REEK of corruption and their borders leak like colanders. When it comes to gun related crime in the western world, America is number one. And pulling in overall homicide rates doesn't take away from the base argument of "Guns cause death". What you're basically saying is that there is serious problem, and until we can solve the entire problem, we shouldn't deal with a symptom that we HAVE identified and can prevent.
Arguing that people are generally violent doesn't take away from the fact that free flowing firearms make generally violent people MORE effective at being violent.
-
The difference gun controls like banning firearms in public hands makes is that when a report is made to the police they have the powers to decisively act to remove the gun, which in the uk means response by a trained firearms team and a no nonsense you surrender the weapon or you will get shot manner of dealing with the situation, one less illegal firearm in circulation
-
Arguing that people are generally violent doesn't take away from the fact that free flowing firearms make generally violent people MORE effective at being violent.
Again, available empirical evidence (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) does not back up this claim. Sure, it might be a little harder to get a gun but most likely there will be more murders as there will be fewer crimes deterred in the 20-40 times greater number of cases where guns are used in self defense.
-
This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.
Can we pick a less asinine example please
Really? does that include child molestation?
-
This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.
Can we pick a less asinine example please
Really? does that include child molestation?
as disgusting as they are, the problem is like any other criminal they live in the same society as the rest of us
-
This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.
Can we pick a less asinine example please
Really? does that include child molestation?
Yeah, probably doubly so
-
Yep, the statistics are pretty clear on that. According to this (http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics), which was the first page found by google, 90% of all victims know the perpetrator, and in 68% of all cases, the molestor was a family member of some sort.
-
This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.
Can we pick a less asinine example please
Really? does that include child molestation?
Yeah, probably doubly so
Show us statistics that don't include child molestation then. Of course the majority of child molesters know the victim, but we aren't talking about child molestation.
-
Straight from BARCC
Attackers target people they know.
75 percent of all survivors know their attackers; 80 percent of all rapes occur in the home.5
90 percent of rape survivors on college campuses know their attackers.6
93 percent of juvenile sexual assault survivors know their attackers.7
Rapists share common characteristics and patterns.
99 percent of female and 85 percent of male survivors were raped by a male.8
While most rapists are male, most males are not rapists.
Most “undetected” rapists (those who have not been convicted or served time in jail) are repeat rapists who commit an average of six rapes each.9
Instead of using weapons, threats, or extreme physical force or violence, most undetected rapists premeditate their attacks, identify and isolate victims, and deliberately use only as much force as necessary, such as psychological weapons and alcohol.10
Rape and sexual assault are significantly underreported.
Nearly 60% of rape/sexual assault victims did not report their victimization to the police in 2006, according to National Crime Victimization Survey data. 11
-
But do those include child molestation? If they don't then yeah, thats pertinent, but if they do then thats going to affect those stats.
-
Look at this: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf
Special attention should be paid to table 7, which categorizes the relationships between victims and perpetrators. And yes, those are rates for adults.
-
Yes, these conclusions still hold if you exclude child rapes.
Jesus Christ how do you not know this? The undereducation of people is shocking.
-
Look at this: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf
Special attention should be paid to table 7, which categorizes the relationships between victims and perpetrators. And yes, those are rates for adults.
thanks
Yes, these conclusions still hold if you exclude child rapes.
Jesus Christ how do you not know this? The undereducation of people is shocking.
I knew this about child molestation, but not about adult rape
-
Yeah cause a rapist comes in and with a big sign that says "I'm not after your money, I want your ass."... No, they say nobody's gonna hurt you, just do what I say... you know the rest. They aren't stupid. They will get you under their complete control and then do what they want. Unless they are overconfident. Because they know if you think they are going to rape you, you might get desperate. If you think they just want your money, you might just give it to them.
So basically your point is that when faced with what seems like a burglar, it's not safer to give them what they want than it is to try to kill or subdue them, because they might actually be a rapist and not only take your belongings after all? Sure, that's possible too.
-
I spent a few years doing krav maga, with a teacher taught by hard-ass Israeli ex-military types, and we were taught that you should always comply with a criminal if possible unless the criminal is clearly threatening rape, abduction, or murder.
-
And if someone tries to do any of those three things to you, you're legally allowed to shoot them anyway.
-
hai gaiz i know this thread is really derailed but i'd thought i'd drop this harvard study (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.harvard.edu%2Fstudents%2Forgs%2Fjlpp%2FVol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf&rct=j&q=international%20gun%20control%20study&ei=1cytTbjkIYGcgQehrvX_Cw&usg=AFQjCNGEpT4LHNfY-pcjefcrgGnZLbX1Bg&sig2=FpacJ7pkPqTLEXANdRTSCg&cad=rja) here too
Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it does matter is that more guns equal less violent crime.
-
And if someone tries to do any of those three things to you, you're legally allowed to shoot them anyway.
That's...correct, sort of. Depends on where you are in the US, and what that state's specific Castle law is.
Remember that there will be lots of soldiers who joined the military to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to take them away. An army of 100 million guerrillas with hunting rifles and revolvers supported by 100 000 regulars who defected will be far more a threat to any regime than just the group of 100 000 defectors.
Another revolution fantasy. Wonderful.
You know, the advantage guerrillas have over regular military is their ability to hide among civilians. If there was that sort of revolution, a lot (and I mean, a lot) of innocent bystanders would die. And your numbers are horribly off--do you really think one-third of the US would revolt? Take a look at Iraq--a country of about 32 million; only about ~130K people were involved in the insurgency. That's <.1% of the population.
Tasers and pepper spray don't always work.
When electrocuted, guy asks cops: "That's all you got?"
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/man_hit_by_police_taser_thats.html
Tasered, guy stands up and continues to fight:
http://www.wehodaily.com/2011/04/16/man-tazered-fighting-deputies/
There's probably a lot more of these situations. If anyone has any statistics, feel free to post 'em.
No, they don't always work, but in that case, guns don't always work either. People under the influence of drugs or in the midst of an adrenaline rush might not feel the gunshot until much later.
'an armed society is a polite society'.
Only time I hear this phrase is from extreme Second Amendment supporters, the gun show types. Not surprisingly, most of the same people are the ones with the violent revolution fantasies.
-
EDIT: I doublepost because I hate freedom.
-
Yes, these conclusions still hold if you exclude child rapes.
Jesus Christ how do you not know this? The undereducation of people is shocking.
Yeah because not only are soft sciences real science, but it is both ethical and practical to conduct large scale social experiments to verify sociological hypotheses to the same degree of certainty possible in mathematics or physics, and being unsure of a claim you think you remember you read three years ago on the internet or in the New Yorker or secondhand from a sociology major while sharing a bong is equivalent to questioning the existence of gravity.
Another revolution fantasy. Wonderful.
Nuclear, I already knew you hated freedom but you have to look at countries like Libya (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/libya) where people owned guns and they easily kicked Gadaffi and his third world military's ass, even if they had to steal most of their weapons, NATO helped out a little bit, and they haven't quite kicked his ass yet.
The previous statements were partially sarcastic.
-
I don't think a population statistic is a hypothesis :colbert:
-
I don't think a population statistic is a hypothesis :colbert:
One day I'll find a contradiction or misspelled big word in something you said GB... one day.
-
Yes, these conclusions still hold if you exclude child rapes.
Jesus Christ how do you not know this? The undereducation of people is shocking.
Yeah because not only are soft sciences real science, but it is both ethical and practical to conduct large scale social experiments to verify sociological hypotheses to the same degree of certainty possible in mathematics or physics, and being unsure of a claim you think you remember you read three years ago on the internet or in the New Yorker or secondhand from a sociology major while sharing a bong is equivalent to questioning the existence of gravity.
Another revolution fantasy. Wonderful.
Nuclear, I already knew you hated freedom but you have to look at countries like Libya (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/libya) where people owned guns and they easily kicked Gadaffi and his third world military's ass, even if they had to steal most of their weapons, NATO helped out a little bit, and they haven't quite kicked his ass yet.
The previous statements were partially sarcastic.
+1 to battuta....
and Libya is not America. I'd like to see you and your ten guns take on a battleship or a stealth bomber.
Also, 'NATO helped a little'? Without our air strikes Gadaffi would've rolled his revolutionaries up in a matter of days. The only reason they have a chance in hell is because the sky is on their side. If a revolution was launched in the states, the USAF would be able to put that thing down in a matter of days. Probably a single day, IF that long
-
am i the only sarcastic person here
GOD why is there no informed disagreement about any substantial political issue on this board? No wonder we all just circle jerk all day.
Drogoth this is why it's either private nuclear arsenals or nothing.
-
Yes, these conclusions still hold if you exclude child rapes.
Jesus Christ how do you not know this? The undereducation of people is shocking.
Wait, is extensive knowledge of rape mandatory these days?
-
To be honest, gun ownership in America is probably a good thing. The biggest issue we have is that our government isn't adequately afraid of the people. We should probably have guillotines set up in state capitals too (the federal government should have a thermonuclear weapon buried under Washington, under the control of the people of course)
-
To be honest, gun ownership in America is probably a good thing. The biggest issue we have is that our government isn't adequately afraid of the people. We should probably have guillotines set up in state capitals too (the federal government should have a thermonuclear weapon buried under Washington, under the control of the people of course)
There are some pretty cool museums, archives and monuments in DC, it would be a shame to nuke the whole thing. I think a more precise controlled set up explosives would be better, like surgically implanted in politicians heads.
-
That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.
-
We just need to bring back the old Athenian ostrakon. For those who don't know what that was, it was a plebiscite about the most powerful politicians, and whoever got the most votes was exiled for a year.
-
That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.
genius.
-
Nuclear, I already knew you hated freedom but you have to look at countries like Libya (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/libya) where people owned guns and they easily kicked Gadaffi and his third world military's ass, even if they had to steal most of their weapons, NATO helped out a little bit, and they haven't quite kicked his ass yet.
The previous statements were partially sarcastic.
My point has been made.
And yes, sarcasm detected. Liberal override engaged.
Preemptive o hai fbi inserted.
No wonder we all just circle jerk all day.
Eh, if you wanna talk circle (http://www.democraticunderground.com/) jerk... (http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index)
Sure, a lot of HLPers are liberal, but for the most part we're pretty tolerant of conservative views as long as the people presenting them are polite. I know I've had a habit of being a dick when it comes to politics, both when I was a conservative and now as a liberal, but I'm trying to be better about it.
-
That's a pretty good idea, the detonation control could be a Facebook page with a poll.
i would be so exploiting that thing :D
personally i dont think there is enough violence in the world. we need rate of deaths == rate of population growth. so moar gun violence and moar war please.
-
I reiterate:
Evidence on Gun Bans and Murder Rates: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4vruXcVfjv-NGE5ZTkxMjQtOGQwZS00YmZiLTgzYjQtOGMwOWQ5ZjVmZmVj&hl=en
Fatal Car Accident Statistics: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html
Homicide statistics by state: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AovruXcVfjv-dE1pVkIxUWtiRXZoSzZHSDBUYTFZa1E&hl=en
(spreadsheet by me based on data from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm)
Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624
Countries which ban guns (specifically handguns) typically have a higher murder rate using them.
Lessons learned? Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
I personally believe (if you haven't already gathered this) that because of human nature, banning guns is largely ineffective. Conversely, not banning guns is also largely ineffective. The best use for civilian gun ownership is sport shooting.
Two more things:
First, that the people who commit murders with guns are a minority of the gun-owning population of any nation that allows civilian gun ownership. Like anything else, it's a few whackos giving the rest a bad name.
Second, that no one today really knows how to set up a "well-regulated" militia for the purpose of overthrowing an oppressive government in today's age of modern warfare. Here's how I think it might work:
1. [Prerequisite] Own a large corporation with the power (money) to build/buy aircraft, heavy weaponry, private fortresses/airstrips, and all the other trappings of modern warfare.
2. Start building/buying all that stuff.
3a. Require compulsory "security training" for all able employees, but offer incentives such as free housing or tax-free income (we're overthrowing the government, so there's no need to pay taxes).
3b. Use propaganda to brainwash all employees and their families.
4. If government tries to stop you, fight back (i.e. let them strike first).
5. Surprise attack Washington, bombing capitol building, White House (or wherever the Prez is), and Pentagon (taking out NORAD (if possible) might also be a good idea)
6. Now that the federal government has been attacked from within the nation, chaos will ensue and the states will eventually try to form their own governments to deal with the chaos of revolution. Therefore...
7. [Optional] Unify the states under a new government.
A few anti-government zealots aren't going to overthrow any [first-world government]. In order to overthrow an oppressive government [alone], a group must (temporarily) have near total control over a lot of money and a lot of people, but must then be willing to give up that control once the oppressive government is overthrown in order to prevent becoming just another oppressive government. Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way; people in power will always try to stay in power. No corporation is ever going to gain control over a lot of people, overthrow one government, set up a new government, and then just release control over those people.
(emphasis added)
All this talk about overthrowing oppressive governments and self-defense is utter nonsense. For revolution, rifles, shotguns, and handguns aren't going to beat any first-world military. For self-defense, we'll never have any concrete answers. I've seen statistics saying that most criminals were deterred by the fact that the intended victim had a gun, and I've seen statistics saying that most people who own a handgun for self-defense don't know how to use one. I've seen statistics that banning guns leads to increased violence, and I've seen statistics saying that banning guns decreases (specifically gun) violence.
The best idea is probably not to ban guns or make them harder to get, but to increase safety and awareness through mandatory classes, like with driving.
-
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."
The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.
Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.
Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.
-
I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.
:wtf:
Yeah, no it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, gun ownership (and the attitudes related to it) in the US is (are) balls-to-the-wall, **** smearing crazy. I've heard all the arguments and none of them hold water for me. Honestly, it's treated like a slightly tragic joke over here.
Hey, if you've heard all the arguments critique the paper I posted and it's conclusions.
hai gaiz i know this thread is really derailed but i'd thought i'd drop this harvard study (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.harvard.edu%2Fstudents%2Forgs%2Fjlpp%2FVol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf&rct=j&q=international%20gun%20control%20study&ei=1cytTbjkIYGcgQehrvX_Cw&usg=AFQjCNGEpT4LHNfY-pcjefcrgGnZLbX1Bg&sig2=FpacJ7pkPqTLEXANdRTSCg&cad=rja) here too
Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it does matter is that more guns equal less violent crime.
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."
The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.
Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.
Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.
Cite a source proving that guns are ineffective for self-defense. The evidence does not show that gun control reduces the homicide rate.
-
im all for gun training, i dont see no point in owning a gun if you dont know how to use one. my brother said his concealed weapon class was well worth taking. it also makes the gun much more effective in a situation where you need it. they also cover a lot of things you dont normally think of, like storage, effective holstering, threat recognition and tactics.
some safety training also would be a good idea for all members of the immediate family, especially children. the typical urbanite keeps their guns locked up or hidden in order to keep their kids from getting into it, and both present problems. hiding the gun doesn't guarantee your kids wont find it, but locking it up doesn't always give you enough time to get it out of the safe when you need it. i know my brother drilled at his safe until he could open it in less than 10 seconds. however i know people who keep their gun rack in there living room with no locks at all, and with ammunition spread about. of course with kids raised on the gun owning lifestyle, often with guns of their own, they have a healthy respect for guns you just dont see in urban kids. id even go as far as school field trips to the shooting range. every one of them should get a lecture on gun safety and a chance to pop off a couple rounds.
im all for training, but im not sure it should be mandatory. gun ownership is so engrained into the american psyche that i dont think it would be remotely possible to ever change the second amendment. and gun safety laws would no doubt depend on the state. gun laws in states like texas, alaska and aizona would probibly be far less restrictive than states like new york or california. given the difference in attitude towards firearms in various states. federal law should mostly just cover registration and the like.
-
I've always found issues with people saying the attackers who act willing to use deadly force are not supposed to be subject to a chance of being killed. Maybe it's faulty logic, and it ignores who is at "fault" for the attacker's situation, but I'm not sure I would feel much sorrow for popping a mugger in the stomach with a .45 if he was threatening my life for 20 bucks. You say it's not worth chancing his life? It's not worth chancing mine either.
I own several guns, and I've never came close to having an incident with them. I was raised to treat the weapons with respect, and after putting, quite literally, tens of thousands of rounds through various firearms I have not had a single incident. Well wait, I take that back, I did pop my cousin in the boot with a Red Rider BB-Gun when I was 10.
Educate people, make sure nobody can buy a "Saturday Night Special" (waiting a few days shouldn't hurt anyone), and better regulate pawn shops.
There's a semi-informed opinion with no citation.
-
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Sarcasm mode on: "If more people had guns, we'd have less shootings in this country."
The more guns, the worse off everyone is. If normal people carry around weapons, that's bad. Think for a second - Someone who gets a weapon to defend themselves, those kinds of people are likely to be the type of person who, if in possession of a firearm, could mess things up even more. Robbery for example - Instead of just taking your money, you'll get shot because the weapon is spotted; hence easier just to shoot you and rob the body. Or how about this: You're robbed, and in panic you go for your gun. Stab, you're dead, or the criminal will grab your gun and if he has to wrestle you for it, you know what's gonna happen if he gains control of it.
Nutshelled: Criminals are better at this stuff than normal people. If you go against them, odds are stacked in their favor and you can end up dead.
Now, putting that aside: I do support things like maze and pepper-spray, because they're not lethal.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that trying to get rid of guns will help anything. Mandatory education is a much better alternative--teach people how and when (and when not) to use a gun properly instead of simply saying "you can't have that, it's dangerous!"
-
I've always found issues with people saying the attackers who act willing to use deadly force are not supposed to be subject to a chance of being killed. Maybe it's faulty logic, and it ignores who is at "fault" for the attacker's situation, but I'm not sure I would feel much sorrow for popping a mugger in the stomach with a .45 if he was threatening my life for 20 bucks. You say it's not worth chancing his life? It's not worth chancing mine either.
I own several guns, and I've never came close to having an incident with them. I was raised to treat the weapons with respect, and after putting, quite literally, tens of thousands of rounds through various firearms I have not had a single incident. Well wait, I take that back, I did pop my cousin in the boot with a Red Rider BB-Gun when I was 10.
Educate people, make sure nobody can buy a "Saturday Night Special" (waiting a few days shouldn't hurt anyone), and better regulate pawn shops.
There's a semi-informed opinion with no citation.
having actually worked in a pawn shop in the state of arizona, we had to go through the same federal process as your typical gun shop. the only difference was we delt in used guns (though i think we did sell new ones as well). this process includes a phone call to the fbi. you fill out the forms and you just give them the contents of certain blanks, and they give you a go, hold or no. go means we could sell it right away, hold means this person was flagged and some investigation is needed to approve the sale (this usually only takes a couple days, and in essence would work kinda like layaway), or no, in which it would be illegal to sell the gun to this person. the rules are more strict with regards to handguns, you can buy a rifle or a shotgun without a thorough check, unless you were explicitly denied to. most of the time it was a go, and i can only remember ever having a single hold, i almost never got a no. there are shady pawn shops which break these rules (we were fairly shady ourselves), but we never did.
of course that was years ago and i smoked a lot of weed back then.
-
Car Accident Fatalities in 2005 (USA): 43,443
Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624
Oy vey.
Guns have one and only purpose: to injure or kill whatever they're aimed at. If used correctly, they'll do just that.
Cars have several purposes: to move people from Point A to Point B, to move cargo from Point A to Point B, et al. If used correctly, they'll do just that.
Cars used incorrectly or for purposes other than what they were designed will cause injuries or fatalities. It's why auto companies spend millions developing better safety equipment, better frames, and new technologies to improve driver and pedestrian safety. It's also why there are laws to ensure people operate their cars properly, so they don't injure themselves or others. There are penalties specifically for crimes committed with cars: vehicular homicide, driving under the influence, and countless traffic laws.
There have to be laws governing the use of guns just as there are laws governing the use of automobiles. You're restricted from driving over certain speeds on public roads because it poses a hazard to other drivers. You're restricted from raising vehicles over a certain height because it poses a risk to you. On the same hand, you should be restricted from owning certain weapons and carrying them in certain places. You can go to the gun range just like you can go to the race track.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier. The whole point of making certain guns illegal is to make sure ordinary people can't get their hands on overly-powerful weapons that make killing others easier.
The best idea is probably not to ban guns or make them harder to get, but to increase safety and awareness through mandatory classes, like with driving.
That's a temporary measure. The best way to end gun violence is to eliminate the root causes of crime in general: poverty, unemployment, poor healthcare, and urban decay.
Unfortunately, the same rabid Second Amendment activists tend to be in the same crowd that view those measures as "socialist" or bad for America. They've become their own self-fulfilling prophecy by ensuring a constant need for guns to protect against the crime they have no interest in ending in any meaningful way.
-
There have to be laws governing the use of guns just as there are laws governing the use of automobiles. You're restricted from driving over certain speeds on public roads because it poses a hazard to other drivers. You're restricted from raising vehicles over a certain height because it poses a risk to you. On the same hand, you should be restricted from owning certain weapons and carrying them in certain places. You can go to the gun range just like you can go to the race track.
You're acting like there aren't any restrictions in America, as if anyone can go and purchase any weapon and just walk around with it.
Absolutely. Wrong.
The exact laws vary from state to state, but in general, the more powerful guns are heavily restricted. About the only guns you ever see out in public are handguns, and even that's rare (excepting policemen, of course). I live in one of the more gun-happy parts of America, and I can count the number of privately owned firearms I've seen in public on one hand. There are concealed carry laws, true, but you have to get a special license for that, which means (guess what?) government-controlled and regulated. I've only ever known one person with that license, and he took his weapon extremely seriously. Really big on gun safety. The vast majority of people who own guns own them exclusively for home defense, or for shooting at firing ranges.
The right to bear arms does not mean unrestricted access to weaponry, and it does not mean that all Americans run around with loaded weapons on their belts.
EDIT:@post beneath this one: I see your point. I apologize for my presumption.
-
Totally missing the point and the context.
I wasn't saying the laws don't exist, I was saying that they exist for a reason. The 'only the outlaws will have guns' and the NRA crowd tend to rally around the idea that the fewer gun laws there are, the better. I was saying that a lot of those laws exist for the same reason we have restrictions on automobiles: because if there weren't laws regarding public safety, a lot more people would be in danger. And a lot of the pro-Second Amendment folks out there want to see more of those laws repealed so they can fulfill their revolution fantasies and pretend that they're going to be the next Minutemen.
It was all just a response to the "cars kill more people than guns, so car should be banned" statement.
-
what they should do is legalize murder, then i could use my gun on people instead of bucks
-
Sure, a lot of HLPers are liberal, but for the most part we're pretty tolerant of conservative views as long as the people presenting them are polite. I know I've had a habit of being a dick when it comes to politics, both when I was a conservative and now as a liberal, but I'm trying to be better about it.
It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.
I don't see safety issues a reason to ban guns, not that anyone was suggesting that. The firearm fatality rate is 9.94 (http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics) per 100k in the US, but 39% of those deaths are homicides, 57% are suicides and only 2% are accidental deaths. Of course 26% of injuries are accidental but I don't think 5.7 accidents per 100,000 people shows guns are an unreasonable risk if they help defend people.
Now it might be a good idea to make firearm safety training mandatory but I'm not aware of this really entering into the debate. Are there any countries or states that actually do this? Because it seems like the firearms "debate" in the US more of a symbolic thing than anything else and people are more concerned about trying to stop people from getting guns than with making sure people use guns safely.
In Virginia anyone with a clean enough record over 18 can just walk into Wal Mart and buy a shotgun; other guns require a permit though. Gun shows especially make it easy to get a weapon in the US- no ID check necessary, walk up to a seller and pay in cash. I like it and it's convenient for me at least. What the heck do you have to do to get a gun in the rest of the world?
-
In Germany, you need to be at least 18 years old, you need to have a clean police record, you have to pass a background check, and, crucially, you need to have a demonstrated need. The latter is assumed to be the case if you have a hunters' license, but can also be demonstrated through membership in a shooting sports club. Note that to get a carry permit for a handgun is basically impossible unless you have a very clear need of doing so (i.e. being a licensed hunter, police officer, security guard in a high-risk posting [bodyguard duty]).
And of course, all of the licenses associated with this have to be renewed regularly.
-
Now it might be a good idea to make firearm safety training mandatory but I'm not aware of this really entering into the debate. Are there any countries or states that actually do this?
In Canada, you must pass a course administering both a written and practical exam in order to apply for a firearms license, a measure the vast majority of us agree with (I have a license valid for non-restricted and restricted firearms). The license application includes provisions for background checks and character references as well (though they're not all that stringent).
Of course, we also have the additional annoyance that all firearms must be registered by make/model/serial# in a national registry, which is a fairly contentious issue that a fair number of Canadians would like to see abolished for shotguns, rifles, and other non-restricted weapons.
But Canada doesn't have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment, nor a real "gun culture" like many American states. We also have much lower rates of firearm-related injury, homicide, suicide, and accident-related deaths than the United States as a whole.
-
But Canada doesn't have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment, nor a real "gun culture" like many American states. We also have much lower rates of firearm-related injury, homicide, suicide, and accident-related deaths than the United States as a whole.
I'd also like to point out that Canada has a much lower rate of non-gun homicide too. The US is kind of in a class by itself there, for whatever reason.
Wow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership), I didn't know that the US was number one in the world in gun ownership until I just read Wikipedia. I mean we have like twice as many guns as the third place country.
-
It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.
Well, it helps when conservative members don't jump in on a thread and start spewing Fox News talking points and accusing liberal members of being socialists. :p Not that you do that, but we just have a habit of answering dickishness with the same.
-
It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.
Well, it helps when conservative members don't jump in on a thread and start spewing Fox News talking points and accusing liberal members of being socialists. :p Not that you do that, but we just have a habit of answering dickishness with the same.
the reason it looks like that is because most of the rest of us have learned just not to bother, when what we get back is essentially either a complete dismissal or a more sophisticated version of "LOL rednecks!" so then you've got about a hundred on the couple who keep going, get backed into a corner, and then of course it degenerates.
-
the reason it looks like that is because most of the rest of us have learned just not to bother, when what we get back is essentially either a complete dismissal or a more sophisticated version of "LOL rednecks!" so then you've got about a hundred on the couple who keep going, get backed into a corner, and then of course it degenerates.
I think we won this thread though. Turns out there happens to be not too many vocal gun control people on HLP, quite a surprise. Also you have to separate instances of "complete dismissal lol rednecks" from instances of "I'm not really interested in politics so I'll just drop XKCD comics and cynical remarks." There are people who will debate with you, seems like The E and Batutta are two examples.
And I don't think you ever get backed into a corner in this place as long as you have Google and Wikipedia on your side.
-
It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.
Well, it helps when conservative members don't jump in on a thread and start spewing Fox News talking points and accusing liberal members of being socialists. :p Not that you do that, but we just have a habit of answering dickishness with the same.
the reason it looks like that is because most of the rest of us have learned just not to bother, when what we get back is essentially either a complete dismissal or a more sophisticated version of "LOL rednecks!" so then you've got about a hundred on the couple who keep going, get backed into a corner, and then of course it degenerates.
Damn, you're onto me! :p
Also you have to separate instances of "complete dismissal lol rednecks" from instances of "I'm not really interested in politics so I'll just drop XKCD comics and cynical remarks."
Yeah, pretty much. There are jackasses on both sides of the spectrum here on HLP, but the only people I harp on is the ****-and-run posters who drop Fox News talking points and then never post in the thread again. I leave it to The E and Battuta among others to handle the people who actually stick around for a debate.
This thread definitely is one of the better political discussions we've had in a while though, I'll admit.
-
I don't feel like I know enough about gun control to really have an opinion on it (unlike most things, which I know everything about)
I did own a few guns growing up but it was kinda bleh
-
I don't feel like I know enough about gun control to really have an opinion on it (unlock most things, which I know everything about)
I didn't chime in earlier, but there's a lot of mixed evidence. Rates of success depend on the country, and have to be tailored to culture. Trying to implement Canadian or British control measures in the US would be a disaster. The research is really conflicted on this issue too. Tough to take a hard-and-fast position on it.
-
You guys are just afraid you might lose, I bet.
It's the internet. Feel free to reveal your half-formed opinions on gun control, criminology and racial science. About the worst that can happen is that you might learn something.
I'm interested to hear some examples of "rates of success varying by country", MP-Ryan. The impression I got from skimming a few Reddit articles on this matter was that if there is an effect of gun control on crime either way it is almost negligible, and any evaluation of "effectiveness" is going to have to deal with far too many confounds for it's conclusions to be meaningful. You can't just yell "Success!" when a graph bounces one way or another after policy changes.
And then there's the lesson from the drug war, that efforts to outlaw something is probably going to create some crime in itself.
-
Don't get cocky there buddy. :p
-
You guys are just afraid you might lose, I bet.
Lose what? To lose, you'd have to argue a perspective not based in fact. As I said, the research is conflicted, so a factually grounded position in favour of specific firearms-controls can be an elusive beast at best.
It's the internet. Feel free to reveal your half-formed opinions on gun control, criminology and racial science.
Now you're just baiting :P Besides, I don't have half-formed opinions on any of the above, one of my degrees is in sociology/psychology, with a heavy emphasis on criminology coursework :P
I'm interested to hear some examples of "rates of success varying by country", MP-Ryan. The impression I got from skimming a few Reddit articles on this matter was that if there is an effect of gun control on crime either way it is almost negligible, and any evaluation of "effectiveness" is going to have to deal with far too many confounds for it's conclusions to be meaningful. You can't just yell "Success!" when a graph bounces one way or another after policy changes.
Well, such things are always bound up in the correlation != causation mess, but it really depends on the way you measure success. Violent crime is declining in Canada - has been since the '70s. Firearms-related crimes are also way down, especially since the 90s - when the Firearms Act was introduced. Firearms-related homicide, suicide, injury, and accidental deaths are also all down, also since the introduction of the Act. All of those are pretty fair measures of success, provided changes in firearms-related laws actually precipitated them. There's also the number of possible suicides and accidents prevented (by training and storage requirements), which isn't actually measurable (but given the decline in rates in general, can be analyzed as a trend). Success of firearms-control measures isn't just a function of crime rate. In fact, I tend to argue that the most compelling reason for some controls (including licensing and safety training) has more to do with the safety of the owner and their family (and the public at large) than anything to do with crime rate. By that measure, the controls introduced in Canada have been an overwhelming success.
Of course, by contrast you need only look at the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. to see abject failure of a control measure.
So it's really not that clear-cut. Evidence is mixed, success depends on the how, where, and whats of implementation.
And then there's the lesson from the drug war, that efforts to outlaw something is probably going to create some crime in itself.
Disingenuous argument. Prohibiton (outright bans) always fails due to supply/demand considerations. Regulation of a substance has more nuance. Banning alcohol created a new category of crime; regulation of alcohol alleviated some social problems [and crime] while permitting a small criminal sector to exist around it (as it did when alcohol was unregulated, albeit in a different form). Regulation of drugs may in fact be considerably more effective than either full prohibition or full legalization.
Firearms are best viewed from the analogy of vehicles (which was mentioned earlier). Unregulated operation of motor vehicles is probably not desirable from a public safety standpoint, but that doesn't mean they should have been banned. Instead, and large and flexible network of safety regulations exist: both on vehicles themselves, and the people who operate them. There is no compelling reason for firearms to be treated any differently, 2nd Amendment considerations momentarily put aside (since we're talking about principle, rather than specifics).
Perhaps the lesson here is to be careful declaring a win when the facts don't support it (and much as research is conflicted, the facts do not support completely unregulated ownership and use of firearms in developed nations).
EDIT: Also, I find myself oddly positioned as, in Canada, I'm actually firmly in the camp advocating for fewer restrictions on firearms than the general populace. Heh.
-
You guys are just afraid you might lose, I bet.
Um. . . no, it's that if one doesn't know much about something, maybe one shouldn't argue about it to begin with.
I personally am liberal in many ways and generally support private ownership of firearms; but that's based of what I know to be an emotional "gut" decision.
-
It doesn't bother me that most HLPers are liberal. What bothers me is that virtually all of the ones that are able to construct a coherent argument are liberal. And I don't care about whether conservative views are tolerated here as long as factual evidence is presented against them and these debates don't result in instaban/threadlock whenever they come up. Really, polite debates and euphemisms can get stale.
Well, it helps when conservative members don't jump in on a thread and start spewing Fox News talking points and accusing liberal members of being socialists. :p Not that you do that, but we just have a habit of answering dickishness with the same.
i kinda think there is also an issue with america's left being a little right of the rest of the worlds left, so some of our democrats often get marked as republicans erroneously.
-
Perhaps the lesson here is to be careful declaring a win when the facts don't support it (and much as research is conflicted, the facts do not support completely unregulated ownership and use of firearms in developed nations).
Okay, I'll take your word for it. And now we're into the arena of specific firearm regulations, something which I know nothing about. But I'm curious if you have any specific studies or legislation you consider particularly significant. For instance I'm not sure if it's worth taking a few million a year out of police budgets to maintain a national firearms registry.
By that measure, the controls introduced in Canada have been an overwhelming success.
Firearm homicides per 100,000, Canada: (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/witn-e/cukier-e.htm)
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/witn-e/images-e/cukier5.gif)
Now I'll agree with you that safety regulations are a good idea, but the homicide trend you described was already going on. As you can see prior to when the Firearms Act of 1995 was enacted gun homicides were trending downward anyway as were non-firearm homicides. The conclusions one draws really depend on what timescale you're looking at especially since firearm homicides spiked in the immediately following year. I really don't see the fall in firearm homicides large enough to be disaggregated from the fall in overall homicides. If anything you could say something happened in 2000 that might have had something to do with the Act that caused these rates to diverge, but that's about it.
(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/img/canhom.png)
Disingenuous argument. Prohibiton (outright bans) always fails due to supply/demand considerations. Regulation of a substance has more nuance. Banning alcohol created a new category of crime; regulation of alcohol alleviated some social problems [and crime] while permitting a small criminal sector to exist around it (as it did when alcohol was unregulated, albeit in a different form). Regulation of drugs may in fact be considerably more effective than either full prohibition or full legalization.
Okay, we've ruled out total prohibition it seems. Not to be chicken, though, but I really don't know enough about guns to say much about regulating them. Background checks to prevent recent felons and people with a history of severe psychiatric disorders from owning weapons make sense. I would not, though, be in favor of the same regulations applied to tobacco or alcohol such as excise taxes which make it more difficult for everyone to acquire guns, even for self defense purposes. Not to set up a straw man.
And regulating firearms is different from regulating cars, toasters and other products because 1) we're talking about restricting ownership, not merely the safety standards of the product and 2) this involves social factors much more complicated than the relatively easy to study technical/medical/ability factors relevant to other products. You might be able to judge if someone is able to drive a car safely, but you can't judge whether they're going to use for evil purposes or if they'll need it to defend themselves.
Perhaps the lesson here is to be careful declaring a win when the facts don't support it (and much as research is conflicted, the facts do not support completely unregulated ownership and use of firearms in developed nations).
I understand that I can drop my extreme position now that we've exited Fox News versus Colbert Report battle mode111. Still, even if regulation is warranted the cost of regulation has to be taken into account. When the proven effect of some particular regulation on homicide rates is small, you have to also ask with regard to fairly expensive policies such as the National Registry, "is enacting this law worth diverting police resources to arresting, prosecuting, and detaining violators when funds spent on additional police training and equipment could save the lives of innocents and law enforcement officers?"
-
you really got to look at all homicides. you want to kill someone bad enough you will find a way, be it an axe, a knife, a baseball bat, a truck, or a super soaker full of gasoline and a road flare. if you exclude premeditated murder from statistics, you might see more deaths by gun, since a gun doesnt give you much time to think about what you are doing, of course the same thing can be said about swinging an axe at someones skull.
-
Totally missing the point and the context.
I wasn't saying the laws don't exist, I was saying that they exist for a reason. The 'only the outlaws will have guns' and the NRA crowd tend to rally around the idea that the fewer gun laws there are, the better. I was saying that a lot of those laws exist for the same reason we have restrictions on automobiles: because if there weren't laws regarding public safety, a lot more people would be in danger. And a lot of the pro-Second Amendment folks out there want to see more of those laws repealed so they can fulfill their revolution fantasies and pretend that they're going to be the next Minutemen.
It was all just a response to the "cars kill more people than guns, so car should be banned" statement.
Granted, I take pro gun control arguments to the extreme (complete banning of civilian firearms), but I also take "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" extremely literally. That is, when I say "if guns are outlawed," I mean "if it is completely illegal for civilians to own firearms." I don't rally around the idea that fewer gun laws are better--I'm all for making them a little more difficult to own (maybe not to carry, though), but not for banning them entirely, when, as I stated before, those who commit crimes with guns are a minority. The rest of us are primarily target shooters or hunters, and never really expect to need to use a gun for self-defense (though we prepare anyway, just in case). We're not out to maim or kill anyone--we're out to have some peaceful fun with stuff that goes "boom." You said that, as drivers can go to a race track to drive fast, so too can shooters go to a gun range. Well, most of us do. Or we at least go to some secluded area out in the boonies (usually BLM land) where bullets aren't likely to go astray and hit anyone or anyone's property.
I've also already agreed that the "prepare for revolution" argument is nonsense because, well, there's nothing we can really do if the US government becomes more corrupt and oppressive than it already is. The power is too widespread and people just don't care enough for any ragtag militia to have a hope of taking down one of the most powerful governments in the world (not to mention the technology).
In summary, please don't ignore my other posts when trying to twist my words against me. At least find out my actual stance on the issue before making your own interpretation of what I say. Thank you.
-
For instance I'm not sure if it's worth taking a few million a year out of police budgets to maintain a national firearms registry.
Nor are we, but as it happens the RCMP now administers the program anyway.
Now I'll agree with you that safety regulations are a good idea, but the homicide trend you described was already going on. As you can see prior to when the Firearms Act of 1995 was enacted gun homicides were trending downward anyway as were non-firearm homicides. The conclusions one draws really depend on what timescale you're looking at especially since firearm homicides spiked in the immediately following year. I really don't see the fall in firearm homicides large enough to be disaggregated from the fall in overall homicides. If anything you could say something happened in 2000 that might have had something to do with the Act that caused these rates to diverge, but that's about it.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was saying that you can't necessarily associate the correlation of rates and the Act when it comes to homicides. Where I was speaking of success is the preventative measures introduced by the Act when it comes to accidental death/injury and suicide. Hope that clears it up.
Okay, we've ruled out total prohibition it seems. Not to be chicken, though, but I really don't know enough about guns to say much about regulating them. Background checks to prevent recent felons and people with a history of severe psychiatric disorders from owning weapons make sense. I would not, though, be in favor of the same regulations applied to tobacco or alcohol such as excise taxes which make it more difficult for everyone to acquire guns, even for self defense purposes. Not to set up a straw man.
And regulating firearms is different from regulating cars, toasters and other products because 1) we're talking about restricting ownership, not merely the safety standards of the product and 2) this involves social factors much more complicated than the relatively easy to study technical/medical/ability factors relevant to other products. You might be able to judge if someone is able to drive a car safely, but you can't judge whether they're going to use for evil purposes or if they'll need it to defend themselves.
You can't legally drive a car without a license. Why purchase a firearm? The point in licensing is education, safety training, and storage training more than restricting who owns it (the background checks are flaky at best, as there are an awful lot of reports of people who passed them doing crazy things with guns). That reduces accidents and suicides. Like I said originally, firearms controls aren't so much about homicides as they are completely preventable deaths. Weapons availability doesn't have all that much to do with homicides, as the vast majority of murders in developed countries are among social and/or family groups.
I understand that I can drop my extreme position now that we've exited Fox News versus Colbert Report battle mode111. Still, even if regulation is warranted the cost of regulation has to be taken into account. When the proven effect of some particular regulation on homicide rates is small, you have to also ask with regard to fairly expensive policies such as the National Registry, "is enacting this law worth diverting police resources to arresting, prosecuting, and detaining violators when funds spent on additional police training and equipment could save the lives of innocents and law enforcement officers?"
I'm not sold on registries, but licensing programs don't really cost that much (they recoup most of it in user fees), and as I said before, the measure should not be homicide rates. It's simplistic to think that regulation of firearms is going to stunningly drop the homicide rate, because that position ignores why homicides occur. The person most likely to kill you is your romantic partner, followed by other relatives or acquaintances; and for that matter, the majority of those are not planned but are more likely to be crimes of opportunity. Restricting firearms ownership isn't going to change that, although it *may* make it less likely that a firearm would be used. As an aside, the vast majority of people who commit murder are of no danger to anyone but the person they killed - high percentages of them could be released the day after and never break another law in their life. That doesn't take into account gangs or organized crime, but they account for only a small proportion of homicides.
This focus on homicide rates is the result of a terrible debate that's been going on in the 'States for years, and isn't reflective of crime patterns as a whole.
-
You can't legally drive a car without a license. Why purchase a firearm? The point in licensing is education, safety training, and storage training more than restricting who owns it (the background checks are flaky at best, as there are an awful lot of reports of people who passed them doing crazy things with guns). That reduces accidents and suicides. Like I said originally, firearms controls aren't so much about homicides as they are completely preventable deaths. Weapons availability doesn't have all that much to do with homicides, as the vast majority of murders in developed countries are among social and/or family groups.
I'm not sold on registries, but licensing programs don't really cost that much (they recoup most of it in user fees), and as I said before, the measure should not be homicide rates. It's simplistic to think that regulation of firearms is going to stunningly drop the homicide rate, because that position ignores why homicides occur. The person most likely to kill you is your romantic partner, followed by other relatives or acquaintances; and for that matter, the majority of those are not planned but are more likely to be crimes of opportunity. Restricting firearms ownership isn't going to change that, although it *may* make it less likely that a firearm would be used. As an aside, the vast majority of people who commit murder are of no danger to anyone but the person they killed - high percentages of them could be released the day after and never break another law in their life. That doesn't take into account gangs or organized crime, but they account for only a small proportion of homicides.
This focus on homicide rates is the result of a terrible debate that's been going on in the 'States for years, and isn't reflective of crime patterns as a whole.
Those are excellent points at least for any country outside America. You see the United States is just about the only developed country where firearm homicides exceed firearm accident deaths by a huge margin. So please understand if "our" focus is a little skewed. Also I imagine that gun regulation is not nearly as much of an impassioned issue in your country given the history of this kind of thing in the United States.
But do you realize how boring this debate becomes when you transition from talking about homicide to accidents? This is not the kind of thing that makes good headline news. Therefore to most people, at least over here, when you talk about gun control you have to talk about violence. I mean, safety training and licensure? Even if you don't consider that common sense, it's an uninteresting bureaucratic discussion.
So, um... yeah. It was nice to hear your perspective. Maybe I'll have something else to talk about in the morning.