Slashdot Mirror

Even if all that is true (and the pro-gun people have lengthy documents shooting holes in those two studies), it is currently my right to make a "bad" decision and keep a gun around.

Scared of guns? Good. Don't get one.

If you'd like to read a scholarly bit from the other camp, check out what Gary Kleck has to say.

Damnit...couldn't you just flame me back? Why did you have to go and be all reasonable?

Muahaha! My master plan. Apology accepted. :)

Isn't slippery slope usually considered a logical fallacy...?

Well, not everyone believes it's a valid argument, but if you look at history there are a lot of examples. Even in the state of California, where I used to live, we went from "register your 'evil' guns and we promise they'll stay legal, we just want to keep track of them" to "we changed out minds, turn them in or you are a criminal" within a year or so. So it can happen.

Switzerland: Google around for data, I don't have links around. But they are quite a gun culture, with some mandatory military service, and a lot of full-auto weapons knocking around. I don't have all the details here, but suffice to say with all that hardware misuse is infrequent.

Economist article: Reading it now. You should read Gary Kleck's studies. But this stuff is hard to study, it may never really get worked out.

Truthfully, I don't care if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that carrying a gun statistically makes me MORE at risk. I am the kind of person who would rather take the "risk," trusting in my intelligence and skills to carry the day if I ever had to use the weapon. (I do shoot pistol competitively. I have no experience with being attacked, but operation of the hardware is second nature and I have a lot of faith in that. I live in Seattle, where I can get a permit to carry a weapon, and I plan to do so. I shoot better than 99% of the cops out there, and I have an even temper.)

I believe you mentioned somewhere in another post that you disapproved of too much sex in the media...

Nope, wasn't me. I do not understand the American fear of that material either. We are a very odd culture here... it probably looks TOTALLY insane to an outsider. My Aussie friends who used to live here were in complete culture shock the whole time.

But you don't have to theorize about it. Just look at countries where they don't sell guns. Do the criminals in those countries manufacture their own? Are the citizens being constantly victimized by well armed criminals? No to both.

Gun control (and knive control, bludgeon control, etc) is most strict and most effectively enforced in maximum security prisons, but they still have a huge murder rate (much more than the general population). Methinks murder rates are unaffected by firearm availability (but feel free to show me wrong with some study of some sort).

What countries do you want us to look at? You claim a body of evidence in support of your view but don't provide any references.. ??

The ideal is that the criminal won't bother trying (or will perhaps resort to some sort of non-violent theft), just in case you're fast enough, or you shoot him as he's running off, or someone nearby shoots him, etc. (Actually, the ideal would be that he has a job and thus no need for crime, but that's another issue). Of course, the ideal doesn't always happen. In any case, statistics show that resisting with a gun is safer than not resisting at all or resisting with anything else, and other statistics show that criminals already avoid situations where armed civilian resistence is more likely in the USA, but don't in countries with stricter gun control. For muggings specifically, I don't know if that holds out. The best defense against muggings, it seems to me, is to stay away from dark, out-of-sight places when you are alone.

The ideal is that the criminal won't bother trying (or will perhaps resort to some sort of non-violent theft), just in case you're fast enough, or you shoot him as he's running off, or someone nearby shoots him, etc. (Actually, the ideal would be that he has a job and thus no need for crime, but that's another issue). Of course, the ideal doesn't always happen. In any case, statistics show that resisting with a gun is safer than not resisting at all or resisting with anything else, and other statistics show that criminals already avoid situations where armed civilian resistence is more likely in the USA, but don't in countries with stricter gun control. For muggings specifically, I don't know if that holds out. The best defense against muggings, it seems to me, is to stay away from dark, out-of-sight places when you are alone.

Look at it this way: there are two types of people who have guns. Criminals, and regular citizens. When criminals have guns, that makes crime easier. When criminals don't have guns, that makes crime harder. When citizens don't have guns, that makes crime easier. When citizens do, that makes crime harder. Because gun control reduces citizen gun ownership much more effectively than criminal gun ownership, it never results in a reduction in crime.

Tax breaks for trained citizens carrying concealed weapons. That will scare the pants off criminals. That, and an end to poverty in the country (by some means), and the amount of crime in the US will be negligible.

gun stats and info

1. In the US, every citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to own a firearm. The founding fathers realized that fundamental rights MUST REMAIN ABSOLUTE, or you might as well have no rights at all.
2. In the US, almost half of all households have a gun in them. It is therefore statistically ludicrous to assign severely abnormal traits to gun owners.
3. Studies have shown that gun owners who are properly trained are likely to be less violent than non gun owners.
4. All instances of children accidentally shooting themselves or each other is the result of irresponsible parents failing to properly secure their guns and teach their children proper respect for them (Yes, children CAN learn respect for things, you liberals have a way of treating kids like emotional and intellectual retards)
5. In the past 30 years, the number of firearms owned by Americans have increased from 122 million to more than 220 million. During that time, violent crime, school violence, and domestic violence rates have decreased.

• Taking aim at Gun Control
  
• Why gun control is wrong (by Yours Truly)
• GunCite - Everything you need to know about gun control and why it's wrong.
• Ethics from the barrel of a gun: what bearing arms teaches about the good life - Written by the same dude who brought you The Cathedral and the Bazzaar

Anyone really interested in an examination of the matter of militia and the people mentioned in the 2nd Amendment in a historicalc context should visit here: http://www.guncite.com/jo urnals/gun_control_hardhist.html

I've heard 43-to-1 and 2.7-to-1 (usually rounded to 3), based on some articles by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, but 10-to-1 is new to me.

Although Kellerman claimed something like "a gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household than an intruder," he failed to mention that people living in a home without a gun are 99 times more likely to be killed in that house than a burglar.

See: Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

and this section of Dr. Edgar Suter's Guns in the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review.

A fatal shot with a semi automatic pistol is as likely to kill as a fatal shot with an automatic rifle

Considering the definition of a "fatal shot," doesn't that go without saying?

As much as I would like to believe that Hitler said that, the quote has been mistakenly attributed to him. See http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_ gcbogus.html. Don't feel bad, I've been burned by it before too.

Guns and burglary facts