[jr2]

Hence my question.

[MP-Ryan]

Hence my question.

Homicide rates in Canada, Britain, and Austrailia are all significantly lower than the United States.  All firearms-related crime is also significantly lower, including the number of suicides.

The United States pays for its gun culture with a much higher proportion of violent crime involving death and specifically crimes committed using firearms.

That said, the difference in rates is likely due to cultural differences concerning firearms and violence, as opposed to sheer availability of firearms themselves.  A gun ban in the US will not bring its crime rates in line with the other countries named - the problem goes much deeper than sheer availability.

[Goober5000]

It's a right of the people because it was made one by the government of the United States, and the government of the United States can remove it...

Whoa, slow down there.  It's a right of the people because they already had that right, along with the others listed in the Bill of Rights and many others not listed therein.  The government does not grant rights and cannot take them away.  They can recognize rights, but that has no bearing on whether the rights exist or not.

As for whether or not gun control works:

Breitbart, January 25, 2007

Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

The Guardian, February 24, 2007

Gun ownership is widespread in Lithuania; anyone who does not have a criminal record is eligible to have a licence. According to police statistics, of the 294 murders committed in the country last year, only 11 involved a firearm, encouraging the widely held view that the greater the number of weapons in circulation, the less crime is committed. "Maybe Britain should consider changing its gun laws and legalising weapons," said Mr Milevskis.

Furthermore, after Texas passed a concealed-carry gun law in 1995, Texas murder rates dropped 50% from 1995 to 2000, 1.58 times faster than the decline in the national murder rate. (National Center for Policy Analysis, May 26, 2000.)

[Bob-san]

OK here are some facts.

Most people who decide to rob a small store are first-time offenders who mask their face. Many of those people have no intent to hurt anyone. We have never banned ski-masks in public.

This is similar. Most people who will go on rampage are known to have psychological problems, generally banned from legally owning a gun. They're hell-bent on getting a gun. So, what do they do? They leave the legality of obtaining a gun to the knowledge of the authorities. They buy a gun from the black market. Then, even the legal authorities won't know they have it until they use it or are busted.

A significant percent of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL firearms. Most LEGAL firearms are either hobbies or protection. Now, there should be more lax gun laws for who can get one, but tighten up restrictions on things like background checks mandatory, tests that are actually HARD (not answering NO to every question), and serial numbers wrote on more than one place, perhaps on the firing mechanism?

Ban guns and take away any hope for vigilante help in a dangerous situation.

Let me share with you guys a short story about what happened to my friend's family:

The family were at the time living in a two-story townhouse in an urban area. The father is a police officer, the mother stays at home, and there are two children who aren't even teenagers yet. Well, one day there was some criminal activity near; a burglar broke into the house. In desperate defense of the family, the mother goes to a coffee-table and pulls out a firearm, loads it, and rallies the two children and herself upstairs. Standing on the staircase, she takes the safety off, and points at the door. The burglar is rummaging through her house, the defensive mother ready to kill any mother****er who opens the door. After a few minutes, the burglar leaves the house without trying the door she was protecting with her husband's gun and her own life.

Truth is in that story; her own situation was exactly why people want legal firearms in their home. If properly training they will be put to good use. If that burglar would have opened that door, there would be one less scumbag on this planet; his death justified by the damage that he might have incurred.

Take weapons from possible victims and you're asking for a problem.

[Nuclear1]

Hence my question.

Homicide rates in Canada, Britain, and Austrailia are all significantly lower than the United States.  All firearms-related crime is also significantly lower, including the number of suicides.

The United States pays for its gun culture with a much higher proportion of violent crime involving death and specifically crimes committed using firearms.

That said, the difference in rates is likely due to cultural differences concerning firearms and violence, as opposed to sheer availability of firearms themselves.  A gun ban in the US will not bring its crime rates in line with the other countries named - the problem goes much deeper than sheer availability.

The US doesn't necessarily pay for having a "gun culture"; we pay because of ethnic divisions.  Look at countries with the lowest violent crime rate:  Switzerland and Japan.  Both are nearly ethnically homogeneous, meaning no racial tension or religious violence between the various groups.  The US is on the entire other end of the spectrum, however.

So you support vigilantism?

How the **** is self-defense all of a sudden vigilantism?  Frankly, it's better to be able to pull out a handgun and blast an armed robber in the leg rather than have to dial the phone, wait for an answer, then wait for the police to show up at your house.

Your argument is completely irrelevant. Restricting access to firearms would not end violent crimes, but doing so would undeniably limit the power to commit violent acts.

Anyone who wants to commit a violent act badly enough can find a way to; if they want to, they'll find a way to get a firearm, or they'll just some other, less humane instrument (box cutter, baseball bats).  Banning firearms for violent crimes makes about as much sense as banning automobiles because of automobile-related fatalities.

Come again? What does that have to do with the issue? Please tell me you're not attempting to paint government as a Machiavellian organisation that will brutally oppress the citizenry the second they let down their guard?

Yeah, actually, that's what it is.  It's extremely naive to believe that government is inherently good; the people in power are still people in power, and unless you can get a Congress full of Cincinnatus's or George Washingtons, they'll always try to increase their power.

Remember that thing called the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, all of the anti-terror legislation passed by Parliament, CCTV, wiretapping, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Don't try to tell me government doesn't want to take rights away. 

[jr2]

Can someone tell me where this quote is originally from?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've heard it before, but I don't know the source.  I think it's pretty much true, though.  Which is why we have checks and balances.  Including an armed citizenry.

[Ghostavo]

Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate?  The burglary rate?  Up or down?

Burglary rate - Down
Murder rate - Down and Up (down in some, up in others)

Can someone tell me where this quote is originally from?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton - here

[Bob-san]

It is generally heard when describing absolute monarchs, dictators, emperors. Once one person can have complete control, history and logic say they will be corrupted, no matter the deed they did to get into power. One thing; those are stats for Australia. The USA is where we are arguing about. Check out the US's crime rates. Also note that states such as Texas allow you to carry a gun anywhere. Gun crime is way down because of this; anyone near you could have a gun close-by. If there is a burglary you witness, you go to where you carry your gun, draw it, and stop the criminal. Vigilante has its good points and its bad points; we already have a good police force though they're a little slow. No need for them to start executing criminals because they THINK the criminal did something bad; they hold them until proper authorities will arrive. It's called a Civilian Arrest, iirc. You can hold law-breakers until legal authorities arrive and take-over.

[MP-Ryan]

A significant percent of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL firearms. Most LEGAL firearms are either hobbies or protection. Now, there should be more lax gun laws for who can get one, but tighten up restrictions on things like background checks mandatory, tests that are actually HARD (not answering NO to every question), and serial numbers wrote on more than one place, perhaps on the firing mechanism?

Actually, that's not entirely true.  Legally owned and possessed firearms contribute to many deaths in domestic situations every year.  But that is the exception - for the most part, violent crimes involving firearms use weapons illegally obtained.

The US doesn't necessarily pay for having a "gun culture"; we pay because of ethnic divisions.  Look at countries with the lowest violent crime rate:  Switzerland and Japan.  Both are nearly ethnically homogeneous, meaning no racial tension or religious violence between the various groups.  The US is on the entire other end of the spectrum, however.

Explain Canada and Britain then - both are just as ethnically diverse as the United States.  Yet, last I looked, violence RATES involving firearms in Canada was 1/10th of that of the United States.

Frankly, it's better to be able to pull out a handgun and blast an armed robber in the leg rather than have to dial the phone, wait for an answer, then wait for the police to show up at your house.

If you're shooting a robber in the leg to stop him, you're not only foolish, but you're not acting in self-defense.  Unless you're a trained expert marksman with nerves of steel, you're going to be lucky to hit a person you have to shoot from anything more than 10 feet away (which, I might add, is half the distance required to get a shot off safely before you can be rushed, as taught in law enforcement Use Of Force [which I've completed]).  You're not going to be doing any fancy Hollywood shooting either - you're going to panic, and your only hope of an accurate shot is center of mass.

Do you know why police often fire upwards of 50 rounds of ammunition when they get into a firefight?  It's not because the "bad guy" is invulnerable or has X number of hitpoints - its because in that sort of situation, the adrenaline gets going, and most people can't aim for ****, including highly trained police officers.

There is nothing that pisses me off more than people who say they're going to stop a robber by shooting him in the arm or leg.  Frankly, you're going to be bloody lucky to hit him at all, even at point-blank range.

[Ghostavo]

One thing; those are stats for Australia. The USA is where we are arguing about.

He was arguing that Australia's crime rate was increasing. Read what he asked.

[achtung]

Banning firearms basically takes them out of the hands of citizens who would use them for a positive purpose, and lets the people who are willing to use them in a negative manner run around practically invincible.

Bollocks. If having such widespread gun ownership "protects" people, explain why so many Americans die every year from guns?

One good example of this being the shootings in which Charles Whitman held himself up on that Texas campus way back when.  As well as police coming to aid, many civilians that were probably better equipped also arrived on scene to aid in any way possible with their personal firearms.

That's right! Because having dozens of armed civilians running around in a crisis situation makes everyone so much safer!

Police forces are very effective, but they aren't perfect.  In many rural areas, and in some urban ones, it can take quite a while before police can arrive on a scene, and in that time lots can happen.  If I can neutralize the threat of someone trying to enter my home and harm me, my family, or to steal my personal belongings, I think I should have the right to defend myself from that threat by any means.

I don't suppose you could cough up some statistics that show that owning a gun will provide effective protection against breaking-and-entering? I mean,

The only thing banning firearms does is move the market from the public market, where it can be controlled to some degree, to the black market.

But in doing so it would put firearms out of reach of those who would kill on impulse. Of course, you'd still be able to buy a 9mm just as you can go down to a bad neighbourhood and buy some crack, but that's better than having legal vendors that sell guns with no accompanying registration or background checks. The idea is to make firearms harder to obtain so that it becomes more difficult for killings like this to take place. Nobody is under any illusion that mass-murders and such would stop dead if firearms were banned, simply that they wouldn't be so damn easy to pull off.

Oh, and lastly, banning firearms will do very little to actually get them off the streets, as they are already well saturated throughout the country.

Well, obviously. There would need to be a major initiative to put a dent in gun ownership, but isn't saving just a few lives worth the effort?

#1.  Because people want to kill other people.  Even if there was some way to get guns off the streets, I think the deaths would just transfer over into people dying via stabbings and bludgeoning.

#2.  Got a point there.

#3.  Could you come up with some to prove me wrong?

#4.  That's right, I'd rather see it made much harder to purchase them though, not a total ban.

#5.  Explain an effective way to clean them up without spending billions of dollars on, a likely unsuccessful, program.

Just to make my position clear on this:

I DO support a U.S. citizen's right to own firearms.

I DO support gun control.

I DO NOT support a total ban.

The fact that this man was not even a U.S. Citizen.  That fact is enough to make me support tougher gun laws, but not a total ban.

I think the age to purchase a pistol should be raised to around 25-28.

The age to purchase a rifle should be raised to 21.

Assault weapons should require special permits, and that someone go through a full psychological evaluation, at their expense.

Background checks should remain in place.

Lastly, I'm going to go for a bit of a craziness here and say that wide spread gun ownership provides some basic means for the public to revolt, and to defend itself in the event of an attack.  However unlikely either of those would be.

[Polpolion]

The only problem with not a total ban is that to make a big difference, you would need too make some mega crazy restriction that would be a huge hassle.

[Nuclear1]

Explain Canada and Britain then - both are just as ethnically diverse as the United States.  Yet, last I looked, violence RATES involving firearms in Canada was 1/10th of that of the United States.

It helps that Canada also has 1/10th the population of the United States too.  Fewer people, fewer crimes committed.  Simple as that.

If you're shooting a robber in the leg to stop him, you're not only foolish, but you're not acting in self-defense.  Unless you're a trained expert marksman with nerves of steel, you're going to be lucky to hit a person you have to shoot from anything more than 10 feet away (which, I might add, is half the distance required to get a shot off safely before you can be rushed, as taught in law enforcement Use Of Force [which I've completed]).  You're not going to be doing any fancy Hollywood shooting either - you're going to panic, and your only hope of an accurate shot is center of mass.

What makes you think that someone who A) knows his house better than the intruder and/or B) possibly knows how to use a firearm fairly well should he own one, wouldn't be able to get off a decent shot or two at an intruder?  I mean, honestly, how hard can it be to get a shot off at somebody from down a hallway even if the defender is in a panic?  Or in the kitchen?

Alright, I'll admit the leg thing was inaccurate; it was actually intended to be more poetic imagery than anything.  The fact is, what's more detrimental to a criminal, a panicked, cowering resident, or knowing that someone may have a handgun hiding under their bed?  At any rate, what's the chance that a criminal is going to come up with the exact analysis that you just came up with?  A guy with a gun is just that; a guy with a gun.  Guns can hurt, even criminals know this.

[achtung]

Actually, this topic brings up a funny story about my Great Aunt.

About twenty years ago my great aunt was the victim of a home invasion.  Her and her husband, who has sadly passed since then, were both asleep at the time.  When the door opened, she woke up, and stayed in bed for a moment listening, trying to see if anything was happening, hoping a light would come on and it would be someone she knew.  Whoever it was that came in started rummaging through drawers, and moving through the house, without turning the lights on.  So she went for the .38 that was in her dresser drawer.  She got in here doorway and jumped out pointing the gun at the crook.  She started pulling the trigger and nothing but a "click, click" was heard.  Junior, her husband, had taken the bullets out a while back for exactly this reason.  After that, Junior woke up and called the cops, and the guy was picked up.

The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.

Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now.  I'll probably post it tomorrow.

[jr2]

My grandfather scared a peeping tom out from his neighbor's window with an unloaded rifle once. 

[Bob-san]

The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.

Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now.  I'll probably post it tomorrow.

That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping).  What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.

[MP-Ryan]

It helps that Canada also has 1/10th the population of the United States too.  Fewer people, fewer crimes committed.  Simple as that.

Which is why I emphasized RATES, another word for which is proportion.  It takes into account population size relativity.

What makes you think that someone who A) knows his house better than the intruder and/or B) possibly knows how to use a firearm fairly well should he own one, wouldn't be able to get off a decent shot or two at an intruder?  I mean, honestly, how hard can it be to get a shot off at somebody from down a hallway even if the defender is in a panic?  Or in the kitchen?

Alright, I'll admit the leg thing was inaccurate; it was actually intended to be more poetic imagery than anything.  The fact is, what's more detrimental to a criminal, a panicked, cowering resident, or knowing that someone may have a handgun hiding under their bed?  At any rate, what's the chance that a criminal is going to come up with the exact analysis that you just came up with?  A guy with a gun is just that; a guy with a gun.  Guns can hurt, even criminals know this.

You ever have the oh-so-pleasant experience of force response under stress?  It's HARD.  Really hard.  Especially because many people who own guns don't really have an appreciation for how to use them properly.  Think of it this way:  if you divide a room into 9 mm squares, how many squares in it don't cover an assailant's body?  That's the number of chances you have of just missing entirely.

Yeah, there's definitely going to be an element of uncertainty of a criminal aggressively going up against a fellow with a gun - on the other hand, they may not know you have a gun.  Or they may think you don't know how to use it.  Or this may make them more desperate and inclined to use their own weapon.

I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves - I'm saying people need to appreciate the difficulties involved.  It won't be a simple matter of yanking your 'piece' from under the bed and popping a few shots at your attacker, and anyone who thinks this way is probably going to end up dead, maimed, or in jail.

[MP-Ryan]

That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping).  What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.

Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who has intent to commit a crime is a good way to either die or end up in jail yourself.  Self-defense legislation requires a follow-through.  If a situation is not threatening enough to actually use force, then brandishing a gun is illegal in most jurisdictions.

In Swantz's case, depending on his jurisdiction and specific circumstances, popping off a few warnings shots could have landed him in court quite easily.

[achtung]

That's another law I think should be changed.

When someone is intent on causing you bodily harm, or harming/stealing your personal property, you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect either.  Curling up in a corner and just letting them have their way does no good.

[MP-Ryan]

That's another law I think should be changed.

When someone is intent on causing you bodily harm, or harming/stealing your personal property, you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect either.  Curling up in a corner and just letting them have their way does no good.

But, to play the Devil's Advocate:
1.  Is your "stuff" worth more than another person's life?
2.  How do we know their intent is to cause bodily harm?  That's a pretty wide definition.  What if I showed up on your lawn and said I hated your guts?  Is that intent to cause harm?  OK, so maybe I show up and say I'd like to beat the crap out of you.  But is that intent to cause harm?  See what I'm getting at here?

People have a limited right to self-defense and to the defense of others entrenched in law.  Exceptions to normally prosecuted behaviours due to mitigating circumstances are presently left to prosecutors and the courts, as they should be.

Part of the price of living in a society governed by law is that everyone is supposed to abide by them, and those who don't are dealt with accordingly by the legal system.  Principles of law are fundamentally incompatible with vigilante ideals.