Slashdot Mirror
An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control?
"Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy guns and regularly compete in shooting matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NRA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed guns have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents.
Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."
Should be, Guns don't kill people, People kill people.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
Come on! How's this fit the mission of this site?
What more could you get besides, "How about a beowoulf cluster of those?".
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
The Bradys? I think the house keeper kept a gun in that football.
This is going to have about 1500 comments by the end of the day.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
.. but "unbiased" and "slashdot" would be an oxymoron if used together.
Trolling is a art,
> Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
Another Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, it's the blood loss and internal organ damage from catching a bullet (or failing to proplerly catch a bullet) that kill people.
--Shemnon
It should be fairly easy to find facts on gun ownership, number of shooting deaths, etc
The problem is in drawing a conclusion from those facts. There is not a single "correct" conclusion that can be drawn, or we wouldn't have the various viewpoints that we have.
Aaron
The book "More Guns, Less Crime" does a pretty good job of just looking at the numbers. When you look at the numbers, the spin the other groups put on a particular incident is lessened.
What, me Tweet?
What about the movie Bowling for Columbine?
If you haven't seen it yet you might want to.
Xii
Gun Crime and Gun Control analyze YOU!
Has sweeps week come to the Internet?
...was a nice documentary, not too extreme and well done IMHO.
The movie director is a member of the NRA and has quite a good approach of always asking "Why the US is different from the other countries?"...
I'll kill before giving up my right to wield firearms. ;)
Seriously, though. Places like Switzerland ensure that every able-bodied adult as a fully-fledged assault rifle in their closet. Places like Israel have public armories, and won't let schoolchildren on a field trip unless the chaperones are packing.
Both of those places have ridiculously low amounts of gun violence. (Google it.) Obviously, Israel likely has more that Switzerland, but then, they've been shooting at the Palestinians for years.
In another example, England apparently has a decent chunk of gun violence, yet strict gun control laws.
I can't offer you statistics off the top of my head. I won't tell you that people need assault rifles to hunt today's super animals like the flying squirrel, and I won't tell you that hand guns should be restricted.
The only thing I'll tell you is that guns don't cause violence - societies cause violence. If not guns, then swords and knives and sticks and bare hands.
Guns don't kill people, it's those darn bullets. We need bullet control.
Correction: Guns don't kill people, f=ma kills people. :)
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.....with guns. Always liked that one:)
The Center for Disease Control keeps very detailed records of how many children die each year in the United States from firearms violence. Suffice to say, I have yet to see any organization, Brady or NRA, that gets these figures right.
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
The topic is surely very interesting, but I'm asking myself what does it has to do with slashdot - besides the fact that many docs are available online.
I'm not saying that this topic is good, bad or ugly - I'm just saying that maybe it's been asked in the wrong place.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
The problem with finding "unbiased" data is rarely does anyone with an opinion either way just decide to do a study. Think of trying to find "unbiased" studies on Linux vs. Microsoft stuff. Everyone has an agenda.
h tm l
I, for one, and a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. And that means I think the government shouldn't be able to stop me from speaking, stop me from gathering in a peaceful manner, stop me from going to church, or stop me from owning a gun for my own self-protection. I carry a gun every day, in fact. It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety, not the police deparment who will show up 20 minutes late to clean up the mess. I take that responsibility seriously, and in this "land of the free", nobody should be able to take that right of self-protection away. The founding fathers saw those as "God-given" (sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal).
If you want some good stuff to research, try these links:
http://www.guncite.com/
http://secondamendmentstuff.com/
http://stealthboy.dyndns.org/~msherman/cowards.
--- witty signature
What the hell does the third ammendment have to do with anything?:
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has.
If you saw Bowling for Columbine then you should know that Chris Rock had a guaranteed solution: Make the bullets cost $5000 each. "I'd shoot your ass, if I could afford it."
Really, this appeals to the Libertarian in me, make bullets reflect the full cost of damages done and the free market will sort things out. It might kill marksmanship competitions and limit hunting, but it will dry up gun violence while preserving the second amendmant.
bance.net
This world would be a better place if there were no guns. Works in Europe (tm). Too bad that it won't work in the US. I hate to say it, but it looks like you're stuck in a downwards spiral where gun related violence increases and any eventual attempts to control the guns result in things getting worse.
The unbiased analysis you seek is just not humanly possible. Everyone has an opinion on the right to bear arms vs. gun control debate, and anyone willo become emotional defending his or her position. Here are some of my thoughts. Outlawing guns won't disarm criminals. They are criminals, and won't respect new laws any more than the ones we have now. Outlawing guns will only raise their price on the black market. Anything demanded will be supplied. That is basic economics. Even if we could create a state where only the army is armed, do we really want to?
How ya like dat?
...fix that stupid flag.
Well if we dont speak up now the BFG 9000 might not make it in to the new Doom
I used to be a very peaceful person. I never got in fights, and I was very polite. Then, in third grade I got a knife. I didn't really kill anyone with said knife. However, when I got my first pistol, I started killing everyone: Secret Service, dogs, and even bosses! Soon, even the pistol's power wasn't enough, and I needed to move up to machine guns, chainguns, rocket launchers...everything. I even started looting treasures to feed my addiction!
I hope this helped.
Guns control you!!
Wait, is that funny?
Gun crime is a crime of opportunity. Guns are available, so crime with guns will occur. The number of guns already present in the United States will make gun control much less affective. Studies clearly show that most crimes are not performed with "new" guns.
Therefore, gun control is a reactionary measure proposed by people who fail to understand the motivations behind gun crimes. They are trying to oversimplify. Guns bad...ban guns, doesn't work though.
The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that. You can give more rights to Americans...if it's not something we've become accustomed too, you might can take it away. But something we've lived with as a standard for years. You can't take that away.
Craenor
Fact: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
;-)
For a shooting to take place (in the US), you need 1) an American and 2) a gun. Now a way of preventing shootings is to remove one of the ingredients. Either get rid of guns or get rid of Americains
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Rates of violent crimes in the United Kingdom have been steadily rising for years, while rates in the United States have been steadily falling. There is a considerable argument to be made that gun control is to blame for an increase in violence in Britain.
The logic is simple: criminals will always find ways to get guns, whether legally or not. If the average civilian cannot own a gun for self-defense, the chances that a criminal will use a gun against a civilian become much higher.
Reason did a very good article on this a little while ago: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome.
Are you looking for an unbiased analysis that's pro-gun-control or an unbiased survey that's anti-gun-control?
3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Why do you want to repeal this amendment?? Do you mean the 2nd amendment?? Have you even read the constitution?
Or more specifically:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.ht ml
Or something short like: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
Or this has both sides of the issue laid out a bit http://www.ncpa.org:80/bothside/crime.html
Gun ownership should demand a great deal of responsibility on the part of those owning firearms.
Practically, though, you don't see people being held accountable when their gun is stolen, used for a crime, found by a kid, etc.
I believe the pro-gun ownership lobby has become too extreme defending the right to own assault weapons and neglected the need to insure that gun owners are more responsible.
They need to listen and understand their own rhetoric about "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place? Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation with consequences that are just as dire.
I'm in favor of an empowered citizenry, with the right to own deadly weapons. But I'm insistent that the greater the risk of the weapon (including the highest levels where government officials control nukes, etc.), the greater the responsibility and accountability needs to be.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
No, we'll be looking for an unbiased analysis of abortion. We want facts from which to reach our own conclusions, not statistics manipulated by the extremists on either side.
finding information that is not from extreamists is quite hard, as you well know. mind you, check out www.bowlingforcolumbine.com . its a movie by micheal moore who is a lifetime member of the NRA, yet he preaches gun safety, not fanaticism that the NRA does now. do check out the film if you can, its excellent
You might want to try looking at the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which is published annually. It contains the numbers for what crimes have been occuring, and (IIRC) whether or not a gun was involved. GRain of salt required - not all police depts report to the UCR (like they're supposed to), and some selectively munge and distort their reports. Then there are those crimes that never get reported to police at all.
In general, gun crime has been going down in recent years, as has the general crime rate. Now whether this has anything to do with gun control (like the Brady Law), who knows? Maybe try and get some numbers on how many gun sales were blocked because of gun control measures, and comparing them up with the UCR's numbers or something.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I agree. There would be far less crime if the Army could quarter troops in our houses.
Of course by thrid you mean second.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
You can't trust your government.
And why have some guy breaking into YOUR HOUSE so that you can call the cops so they can come with THEIR GUNS. HOW INSANE. Better than have your own gun right there for you to use.
Here in the USA in times of Homeland Security a ready militia is needed now more than ever before. I consider defense of your own home by YOU good militia work too.
If someone broke into your home and did not have a gun and you had no gun, I'm sure you would pick up whatever you had in your house (bat, knife, etc.) to defend yourself. And if you had to hit him with whatever you picked up you probably would not worry much about if you killed them, so long as you protected yourself. And some would lead you to think it's better to call the cops with their guns, because they are so responsible that they BEAT CHILDREN IN THE STREETS ON CAMERA, rather than keep a gun yourself.
Don't be fooled!!!
Did this guy watch The Simpsons last night? That episode would have clearly explained the impact of gun control :)
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Your best bet is trying to find the cold hard facts about the number of violent crimes committed, the rate of gun ownership, and the laws about gun control, and then analyzing this on your own. If you read into someone else's report, you are most likely going to see something that has a bias one way or the other. If you have the data to look at yourself, you can draw conclusions on your own without much bias as long as you have an open mind. Just remember that there are many factors to take into account. Gun control laws aren't the only thing that affects violent crime. A good way might be to find places that have institued major changes in their gun control laws and see how this affected the crime rates.
And just because I love this joke, here it is:
How does the ACLU count to 10?
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA
I am not a member of the NRA and have no immediate intentions of becoming one, but I cannot see how their position can be labeled "extreme". As far as I can tell, they simply want to maintain the status quo and uphold the second amendment. Their position is painted by their opponents as extreme because our culture deems a "moderate" position as being intellectually superior to an "extreme" position. Their opponents have tried all sorts of word gymnastics to diminish the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment, yet the NRA's position has remained consistent and firm.
I remember reading that the majority of crimes were committed with guns obtained illegally (i.e. stolen or bought off of the black market) so I'm unsure what anti-gun advocates intend to accomplish (other than eventually disarming those that abide by the law).
MARK DUGGAN
University of Chicago - Department of Economics
October 2000
Abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.
...such a thing as an "unbiased" (by your definiton, and probaly not not most if not all others) opinion on a subject that is as touchy as this.
The closest approximation is probably the writings of those who started out on one side of the issue and after their own research/experience have concluded that the other side was more correct. The kicker is, of course, are they real or a shill so one side or the other looks like it has converts?
Its a interesting and at times funny, and at other times very sad and scary film. He makes a good point in saying that Canada, which has almost as many guns per capita as the US has almost no gun violence. It still may be in some theaters, so if you can find it, do so.
Topics such as gun control, abortion, capital punishment, etc. are too emotionally entangled with people's perception of the issues. Most people don't own guns, nor have they ever fired one in their lives, but they sure do have an opinion on gun safety. I'm not discounting their opinions. For example, I've never owned a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean my concerns over them aren't valid. However, just about anyone can learn how to operate a firearm safely. Therefore, I do believe gun owners have an edge over most other individuals as far as having an opinion that counts.
why? you want your own live-in soldier?
Carlcmc asks: "I have been trying to become more learned on the issues surrounding knife control and crime. I have had quite a time searching the internet for references about these issues. Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NKA or the Brady Foundation. The same holds true for references that I have found in our library. I was wondering if any of the members of the slashdot community have come across articles that are objective in dealing with these subjects, and I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas." "Just so everyone knows where I stand, and why I am asking this, I offer the following. I enjoy knifes and regularly compete in knifing matches and hunt occasionally. I am a member of the NKA, not for political reasons, but due to the fact that most competitions are closed to non-members (which I do think is screwed up). Having said this I am undecided on what a logical path for the future is. I do believe that an unarmed nation is a bad idea, but as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita knife ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has. All of the statistics that I have seen about countries that have altogether outlawed knifes have been manipulated by those extreme groups. As such I find it hard to believe anything that either side presents. Thanks, I look forward to reading all of your comments and the references that you provide."
A lot of people will/have ask what business this has on /.
Personally I'm wondering too- though for what it is worth every time I read arguments about freedom in regards to softare/tech stuff I am stunned by the parallels in the gun control arena.
Should hardware or software that COULD be used to circumvent the law be illegal? Even if there are other uses that are not illegal?
What about personal responsibility?
And for my opinion on the question itself. I will add what I believe to be a fact that would add a lot of reason to the debate.
Gun control cannot work in America without the citizenry of the U.S. giving up a lot more of their personal freedoms. It is too easy for Americans to come and go as they please- to keep things private in their homes and buy/sell things in private- unregulated transactions.
As long as this is true gun control will be unworkable. If you doubt this look at how incredibly innefective gun control has been to this point in time.
The parallels to the war on drugs are also interesting but I've gone on enough already.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I suppose your going to advocate building your own wepons too, you poor biased reportor.
Awhile back I did an analysis of gun control by correlating one self-described "gun watchdog" group's grades (ranging from F to A, with +'s and -'s) on the different state's gun control laws.
.25) between the level of gun-control.
Then I took the number of violent crimes, homicides, &c per capita (FBI statistics for the same year as the survey) and put them in separate columns. Looking at the correlation matrix I found that there was no correlation (R^2 <
A principle component analysis revealed a further lack of dependancy of one variable on the other.
This study was by no means complete--I didn't correlate it against the years or anything along those lines, but a search on the net for other research while I was performing the research for this project indicated that other studies--using various methodologies and some of them much more formal and complete than I had been--had come to the same conclusion that I had.
If you don't believe me, download a copy of R (http://www.r-project.org/) and check it yourself with those criteria you think would be accurate. I would be interested in the results.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Correction: f=ma doesn't kill people, f applied over a small area in a critical part of the body kills people
Danish != nationality
The third amendment is "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Perhaps you meant the second amendment?
If we repeal the third ammendment it take the guns away from the lawful citizens who use weapons for recreation as well as self-defense. Then all we would be left with is criminals with guns. Repealing the third ammendment is not going to take the guns away from criminals, because most of them have the guns illegally already. This ammendment does serve a purpose by allowing citizens to defend themselves if the need arises, without it the crime rate would be much higher because only criminals and law enforcement would have guns. Think about it.
I see that you're implying that Americans aren't people, well we don't need any of your racist clap-trap here.
For some reason, I don't see how the government's inability to quarter troops in my home in times of peace helps criminals.
Seriously, though, at least get the admentment right if you are trying to make an argument.
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
By far the most potent vault of gun facts on the Internet is GunCite
It is a wonderful source of gun information, and a far better source than even Snopes for combatting gun misinformation. Additionally, I would recomend Michael Moore's new movie Bowling for Columbine - if you are an American interested in learning about guns in America, you can learn more about gun advocates in the two minute Terry Nichols interview than you can in a year of attempting to decipher NRA mailings. 'There are real nuts out there!' exclaims Terry. And he is quite right.
Despite the recent California Supreme Court decision, I think every reasonable American knows that the founding fathers designed the second amendment to allow all Americans access to personal firearms. Muzzle loaded, smoothbore, single shot flintlocks. Of course, the idea of giving a person today's concealable automatic ceramic-barreled teflon-round armed killing machines would have been complete anathema even to Patrick Henry, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will get around to upholding a ban on everything but black powder smoothbore, but until then we'll have to tolerate the nutjobs.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Guns and Violence: The English Experience
by Joyce Lee Malcolm
-discusses the effects of gun control in the UK
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
by John R., Jr. Lott
-discusses the effects of gun control in the USA
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/19/da ntre.htm
The recent book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" is perhaps the most recent scholarly work on the subject. But the author, Michael A. Bellseiles, did a fantastically unscrupulous job of research: making up figures, referencing books that haven't existed for 100 years, citing non-existent sources, and then refusing to produce any of his research. It made a large splash in the academic community last year, and Bellseiles has been discredited, forced to resign his academic posting, and there is talk of revoking a prestigous award previously given him.
In other news, I think you're going to find it very difficult to locate "unbiased" sources. I'm wondering exactly what you mean by "the facts" anyway. If you want to find out basic statistics, try the following site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm. Other than that I'm really not sure that there are any facts to speak of. Is it a fact that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a firearm or not? At the moment, it seems to, but this could change at the drop of a hat. What function did the Framers intend the Second Amendment to serve? You're a lot more optimistic than I am if you think something like that is determinible. The bare numbers are available on sites like the one I referenced: everything else is rhetoric, and a decent percentage of the numbers probably are too.
I agree with Robert Heinlein:
"An armed society is a polite society."
It would be nice if more people were polite, wouldn't it?
Plus, isn't an armed citizenry quite a deterrent for casual crime...? ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'd just like to point out that Canada tends to be more rural than the U.S. As with many social problems, I suspect gun crime increases with population density. To be fair, dense areas give rise to other phenomena (wider variations in income) so it may be difficult to isolate cause even if this is true. BTW, I thought guns were illegal in Canada. Or is that just handguns (which could explain it too).
Why should you even look at the numbers... Doesn't the title of the book tell you everything you need to know? :)
1. No, I have never come across an objective article dealing with this subject.
2. Ideas I have about this issue: I'm packing heat, 24/7.
3. FACTS I can offer to support my idea: Job requirement.
You write that while looking for references you've exhausted the Internet and your local library...
So what secret references do you think a bunch of geeks know about? You're looking for "FACTS" - where do you think those "FACTS" that anyone here has came from? Um, probably all the references you've already found.
You then cite Michael Moore, who is decidedly biased.
Look, you're looking for a path for the future. Since you presumably don't have magical powers let me save you the effort of worrying over this. Nothing you do makes a difference. Your vote really doesn't count. Just do what you enjoy - being an NRA supporter for personal gain. You'll be dead soon enough and things will go on without you.
One of the more interesting sets of statistics you will find is the violent crime statistics for Great Britain, USA, and Canada. Its always really great to use because its is funded by the governments and although they tend to be run by party hacks the figures rarely are favorable to either point of view. They are just what they should be, raw statistics.
That being said, after reading those raw statistics you will find something that is blatantly apparant, but isn't talked about much. The USA and Britain both have cultures of violence that trascend gun ownership. This culture did not carry into Canada somehow. They may not be superior in many ways to the Good'Ol USA or the Great! Britain, but their kids don't shoot each other like the U.S. or stab, beat, and rob each other like Britain.
The ownership of weapons has almost nothing to do with neanderthal tendencies for violence built into the cultures. If we wish to make this or any country with violence problems better you need to find the roots not the tools.
The Evil Truth Giver!
Is slashdot to politically correct to post this one??
It sure impresses me when my local neighborhood violent criminal goes and registers his gat like a good little boy. I am so thankfull that we have a way to track all of these illegal weapons. It's fools like you that pave the way for the 600+ murders that Los Angeles will see this year. The only thing you accomplish by restrciction of gun ownership is to take the guns out of law abiding citizens hands. A very common gun found here is the MAC-10, there is no way that you or I could go and purchase one of these legally, the streets are riddled with them however. Why is this? Because of the existence of the third amendment, or because of the deep restrictions placed on people like me that obey the law? Take your socialist crap to australia or the uk where it belongs.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Perhps you mean the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being a necessity in a free society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." If the meaning ofd this were not so murky, that alone would be something. Does "Well regulated Militia" mean the army, the national guard? or everyone able bodied? and does "the people" mean all the people, or just the ones in the militia? Do you propose that if we passed a new law,that criminals who are by definition, people who break the law, will respect it? That would be a magic law. Too bad there's no such thing.
How ya like dat?
One word : google
/. comments are an avalanche of badly formulated, biased, vaguely interesting and incoherent brainfarts. It's called 'comments', not 'discussions' for some reason.
I do understand that guns are a critical issue in every society, and that everyone is involved when it comes to discussions about guns, but apart from thinkgeek toys, I see little nerd-related issues in such a discussion on this website. Most of all since the majority of nerds have a big problem with serious, open and honest discussions. We can't even make our minds up when it comes to text editors. How in heavens name do you expect any interesting results from the comments of this article ? You could as well ask for a poll and base your conclusions on that.
I find the submitter of the article to be a lazy bum who is not willing to form his own opinion based upon serious research on the topic. Walk into a library, read a newspaper, talk to real people with which you can actually exchange information (as in : two-directional)...
To the moderators : if you mod me offtopic here, you sould seriously considering reading all the comments at -1. You'll probably find a lot of people with my opinion being filtered away.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Let's throw out all the bill of rights. Why do we have those any way? Wouldn't a government with complete and total control be more effecient?
This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/ind ex.php Click the 'brief history of america' link for your favorite media player. Come to think of it, click the other links too. Then since it will probably have been /.ed by the time you get to the last one, just go out and see the movie.
OK. Thread's over, you can all go home now.
A few thoughts on that debate:
1. I'm not a gun owner and have no problem with gun controls, but I know people who own guns. They're responsible and have never caused problems or have anti-social tendencies. While I don't mind the thought of gun registration, it needs to be done in a responsible manner. Maybe something akin to vehicle registration, which is not that onerus and not very outrageous at all.
2. on a pro-gun (American) website (IIRC) I noted that %29 of Canadian households had guns and %39 of Amercan ones did. IIRC, as well, most guns in Canada are rifles or shotguns. I believe that a greater proportion of the firearms in the U.S. are pistols or (semi-)automatic rifles. These are weapons more suited to killing people. That could explain the discrepancy between murder rates between the two countries. Being Canadian and knowing some Americans, the character of the two peoples is not that far apart.
Michael Moore is entertaining and smart, but like most commentators on any side of any issue he isn't the most unbiased guy in the world. And this is a fairly liberal fellow saying this. A specific note about "Bowling for Columbine;" I think he's talking about gun related deaths, not the murder rate in his movie. (I could be wrong but I don't think so)
Anyway....
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Close.
Guns don't kill people. *I* kill people.
Where are the most violent crimes committed, compared to the number of available handguns.
I think you will see that the number of violent crimes goes up with the number of weapons.
Go make your own conclusion.
That being said, it is still difficult to explain the two orders of magnitude difference in homicide rate. Another interesting statistic is that in Canada's largest city, Toronto, it is estimated that 3 out of 4 hand guns involved in a crime are imported illegally from the US.
Draw your own conclusions.
You initial premise is wrong: there is no such thing as an unbiased approach to gun ownership.
You assume that everyone shares the same goals, but that we simply disagree on the best scientific method to achieve those goals. The reality is that we are a society with different goals, different values.
The paranoid NRA pro-gun stance is really based upon pro-"liberty" stance. They want the right to own guns in much the same way that they want to be free do lots of things. The average pro-gun person is similarly against laws requiring you to wear seatbelts.
Likewise, the paranoid anti-gun stance is really based upon pro-"state" values. The average person who wants to ban guns also wants laws to require you to wear your seatbelt.
The "gun-war" is really just a proxy-war -- they are really debating something completely different. It's much the same way that you won't find anything but hot-air in the abortion debate: it is just a proxy war, they really aren't debating abortion.
BTW, the per-capita deaths due to car accidents hasn't gone down since most states passed seat-belt laws. It is likely that pro-gun or anti-gun laws will likewise have little affect on gun related deaths. At the same time, you can have lots of reasonable restrictions on guns without really hurting individual rights. In other words, the laws that are likely passed will have little effect either way. It all comes down to whether you want to live in a highly regulated society or not. Many people do, many people don't.
Gawd I wish I had some mod points right about now...
In a free market, prices are signals indicating how much a resource costs to produce. Artificially altering this price is the opposite of a free-market system - what you are talking about is a "planned economy", where beaurocrats attempt to achieve certain social aims by manipulating and obscuring price signals. An example would be the various "sin taxes" on things like alcohol and tobacco.
I'm just trying to clarify your terminology - technically this scheme appeals to your inner Socialist, not your inner Libertarian.
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Well read.
Why do you want to repeal this amendment??
Because everyone in America talks far too much about their rights, but never their responsibilities. Having an armed military presence in their homes might make them think straight.
Do you mean the 2nd amendment??
No. That's why I said third.
Have you even read the constitution?
Yes. An impressive document, but slightly overrated these days in my opinion. While I agree that it was an excellent foundation to base a nation on when it was first written, and is a good basis for other nations to start from, it is somewhat designed for the nature of the union at the time it was written rather than the modern Federal US.
In Soviet Russia, gun kills you! Wait no...lemme try again.
...shit
In Soviet Russia, you kill gun!
http://www.mcsm.org/doctors1.html http://www.relfe.com/doctors_kill.html http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/doctors_de adlier_than_guns.htm
In the end, it's a US$ and Cents question. Which costs more, to whom ? Where does the money go ? How much economic momentum is generated ? Forget efficiency.
Just what does killing Bambi have to do with a well regulated militia anyway?
A short unbiased discussion on what exactly the second ammendment protects:
m endment02/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
From the language in the ammendment itself, I take it to be a guard against an abusive govenment. Keep in mind that many of these ammendments were passed because of the experiences that America had with England... In this manner citizens should be allowed to arm so that the government remains unaccountable.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
I hate to get involved in gun-control arguments, but...
Could anyone post a link supporting this? I've seen lots of England-vs-America gun arguments and the one conclusion I always noted was that England has a pretty low rate of gun violence. Despite their relatively high crime rates in other areas.
Bowling for Columbine. It may not be completely unbiased, but Michael Moore's pretty good at shedding light on what people don't want you to see.
Now playng at a theater near you.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
given the quality of most Army enlisted types, I'd try to avoid that, if possible.
What more do you need to know? Whether you're more likely to kill someone because you carry a gun. Sure you are. Whether you're more likely to get killed because you carry a gun? Debate that all you like, but if you have it, you have the choice whether to use it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I thought this kind of thing only happened on Fark.com
:-)
I find it very funny that the first article in this thread has already been modded "Flamebait" There's going to be a LOT of flamebait here.
I even passed on the opportunity to moderate just to make this post
ahhh, yeah I meant the second amendment...thats what happens when you assume
Yeah, guns may be used in a lot of crimes here in the US. But, I'm much more interested in stamping out the international gun and weapons trade.
There are a hell of a lot of guns all around the world. They currently cause a lot more pain and suffering than chemical and biological weapons do. Let's make them hard to buy new or used. Let's buy up and destroy the (probably billions?) of old ones.
Let's come down on weapons dealers far more harshly than we do on drug dealers.
My thinking on the matter is: if no one has guns I would feel safe, knowing that if someone wants a gun they can get it makes me not feel so safe, so I need to get a gun too, given that bare hands are little match for a 38 special if the need ever did arise
I certainly see a need to limit the spread of weapons in this country, but I don't think it will limit crime, only gun related crime. Last time I checked, lots of people were killed with knives *and* blunt objects (try limiting those).Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
Personally, I think that gun violence in America is more symptom, than cause. I also don't happen to think that the "cause" is any easy one to identify and/or deal with. Else, in another breathtaking stroke of obviousness, it would have been dealt with already.
Apologies for all the obvious statements, but it seems to me that on polarizing issues such as this, people tend to forget such little self evident tidbits in an attempt to push their own agenda.
My $30.06.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
(Oops! forgot the smileys - this was the funniest post I'd read in a while!) :) :) :)
It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety...
Is your neighbourhood really that dangerous? How many times have you felt obligated to brandish your weapon to protect your family? What are you so afraid of? That someone else with a gun will randomly try to kill your loved ones? Or do you love your property so much that you would be willing to kill for it, rather than file an insurance claim? These are honest questions because I really don't understand your mentality.
Given your past need to fend off attackers with your gun, what is the greater probability: that at some point in the future you will successfully save the lives of your loved ones with your gun, or that someone you love will be killed with it while they're goofing around?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
I don't think it would have hit the American media yet, or at all, but the Canadian gov just blew a Billion dollars on a gun registry that even the RCMP said was useless.
If the Americans start to look to us for guidance, and we look to them, doesn't that lead to some kind of an infinite loop.
My head hurts
Charlton Heston is my president.
No. I like the right to own a gun.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226 493644/qid=1039469029/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-891185 5-5319946?v=glance&s=books
More Guns, Less Crime is a book by a liberal that takes unbiased FBI numbers regarding what happened when concealed carry laws were passed, and other very controversial subjects..
and he found that the more law-abiding people that had guns there were, the lower the crime rate because of the fear factor.... that is, the criminals were fearful of the well armed citizens that were ready to defend themselves.
its not politics, its logic.
If it were legal to carry a gun here in LA, maybe that guy wouldn't have tried to carjack me in the Tace Bell drive-thru. He saw a small, white guy in an expensive sports car. I was an obvious and easy target.
I got away - thankfully - by hitting him with my car.
but fsck that. I just carry a small auto now. I'm not going to hope to get lucky next time.
bad guys.. there are a LOT of us nerds carrying now.. and we're growing in numbers. Just so you know.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
http://www.cdc.gov
There's numerous related sites to gun related issues. That is if the Government is unbiased that is. There's doc from Massachusetts so take that for what it's worth.
It may be a good starting point.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
This is an excellent book, and consists of one of the largest studies ever compiled on the statistics gathered by the various US agencies and other sources.
Since I'm sure this will be blasted as being biased, let me suggest something. No matter what, every study you read is going to be accused of being biased towards whatever outcome it has. If you want lots of statistics with the reasoning behind it and so on however, you should check out this book. It is quite thorough...almost to thorough for some people however...as some parts can be almost painful to wade through if you aren't fascinated by statistics and so on.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Hate to break it to you, but the first thing you learn in journalism is that the retelling of a "fact" distorts said fact. Smart people distort facts to make them still sound like facts. Behold CNN.
Now, if you're out looking for somebody to give you facts, to tell you what's what -- well, you're not going to end up with the facts you want. You'll probably end up with the facts that somebody else wants. Furthermore, because you're looking for an extensive study of facts, it's practically guaranteed that you're going to get "facts" that are all the more skewed because the person doing the extensive study of such facts had to have an interest in collecting them.
In short, Hypothesis precedes experiment -- and in sociology, you don't have any annoying thermodynamics to get in the way of a good story.
Setting aside issues of constitutionality of gun legislation, he major issue I have with gun control is simply that it doesn't work. Making guns illegal will simply enhance the black market that already exists to distribute them. The public will be denied guns to defend themselves with while the criminals will simply continue to buy their guns off of the black market.
Here is some more information on the issue:
http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html
Man with no gun shoot off his mouth.
On the off chance that you are not totally stupid, and the "third amendment" is merely an honest mistake for the "second amendment":
How bout some facts to back up your thoughts?
Removing guns from lawful, responsible people does nothing to keep them out of the hands of actual criminals. By definition, being criminals, they will not surrender the firearms in their posession. So they they have them, and no one else does.
Not a good concept for self protection. And the police being what they are, they cannot be everywhere at once.
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
If not, you are reaping the benefits of allowing guns in the hands of lawful citizens. The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in. You may not own one, but no one knows that but you.
For some reason, I don't see how the government's inability to quarter troops in my home in times of peace helps criminals.
It's pretty obvious really. If you don't want troops quartered in your house then you must have something to hide: if you have something to hide then you must be a terrorist bent on the destruction of the state.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even the whiniest liberal would have any problem with this. How else can we guarantee individual freedoms into the future?
This was settled, decades ago, but the antis don't want to hear it. Back in 1978, the anti-gunners convinced the Carter Administration to back the gun-control study to end all gun-control studies. So the NIJ put up the funding, and they found the best criminologists and sociologists they could find, in the persons of James Wright, Peter Rossi, and Kathleen Daly. They had impeccable credentials, and had written anti-gun opinions in the past. But they were honest researchers, and their conclusion, at the end of four years of reviewing all available research: There was no evidence that gun control had ever worked, anywhere, at any time. Since then, the criminologists and sociologists have reached a consensus - gun control measures applied to the general population have no effect on crime. The anti's could have admitted that they were wrong, but instead they abandoned the whole field of criminology and sociology, and began they're "public health" campaign. The best explanation of this on the web is Don Kate's "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?" http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html It's a long read, but the conclusions are clear (not only of this, but of every honest researcher in the last 30 years): Gun control does not reduce crime.
Correction: people get killed for posting too many smart corrections (this is not a flamebait -- seriously how many geeky corrections do you think a reader can take? I was fairly annoyed after the 3rd one)
"You can't trust your government."
If you live in a democracy, why not? They're your representatives. They were voted for by you or the people around you. If you don't like them, at minumum, vote against them and campaign for the people around you to vote against them. If you can't trust them, you are probably guilty of political apathy. You have to work with the system, not fight. This is the only way that democracy works.
Well, yes. It was offtopic, I just feel that it's an outdated idea.
repost, because I hit the wrong reply button..
It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety...
Is your neighbourhood really that dangerous? How many times have you felt obligated to brandish your weapon to protect your family? What are you so afraid of? That someone else with a gun will randomly try to kill your loved ones? Or do you love your property so much that you would be willing to kill for it, rather than file an insurance claim? These are honest questions because I really don't understand your mentality.
Given your past need to fend off attackers with your gun, what is the greater probability: that at some point in the future you will successfully save the lives of your loved ones with your gun, or that someone you love will be killed with it while they're goofing around?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Canada certainly has much more of a monolithic culture than does America. I think much of what America terms as "problems" are simply the costs of having a truly heterogenous society. Every such society has these culture clashes, and that is the source of the violence. The guns are simply the implementation.
Columnist Michael Medved makes the claim that if you isolate the gun crime among people like Canadians (i.e., whites), the numbers even out quite a bit. Without delving into the quagmire of why that might be, if it is indeed true, and I can't confirm or refute it quickly, it sort of makes the whole Canada vs. U.S. argument go up in smoke.
My personal resolution to the argument is simple the question: if you do not allow citizens to own firearms, how shall they protect themselves from criminals? Your answer cannot be "the cops". That's not what they are for. It's easy to sit in front of a computer in suburban America with a BMW in the garage and wonder why in the world anyone would need a handgun to protect themselves. Talk to my sister in law, who was attacked and beaten by her boyfriend, and you might get a different point of view.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
I'd waste my sole remaining mod point on this one but someone beat me to the "Troll" and frankly I don't think it would be worth it since there isn't a way to mod it "-1 dumbfuck"
But if there was...
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
There is a set of factoids that have been widely distributed, such as here. They have a pro-gun bias, but sound credible to me. The gun-control folks never seem to indicate that most of their shocking statistics are primarily about suicides and gang members killing each other, rather than littly Timmy finding Daddy's gun in the closet.
...but what does this have to do with News for Nerds? I have my own opinions on gun control, etc., but this is hardly the site I go to for this type of news. Seriously. It's not even remotely geek related.
-Valiss
There is NOTHING in the 2nd amendment about the right to bear arms. Only for the formation of a WELL regulated militia.
Letting people own firearms != a well regulated militia
Quite simply, you will never find any meaningful data on the relationship between guns and violent crime because there really isnt much of a relationship.
You need to consider what causes crime. Crime is caused by mental or severe economic problems, and often catalysed by a social factors (gangs).
In places where the mentally ill are properly treated, this is not a factor. Here in LA, the mentally ill wander free with little or no treatment.
Also here the bad economic situation of the inner cities is drastically contrasted by the situation in Bel Air. Combine this with movies, TV and music that glorify the life of a thug gangsta and a persons natural resistance to crime can be worn down over the span of only 10s of years.
Guns are just an effective tool for doing a job you have decided to do.
This is not a troll or flamebait. We have tens of magnitudes more gun deaths than any other first world nation (100k vs 350). Is it because we have more guns? I suppose one could make that claim. The US has more guns than any other first world nation. Except, proportionately, Canada has more guns per person than US and they have a little over 300 gun deaths a year.
It seems that the rediculous number of gun deaths that occur in the US is unique to the US and is independent of numbers of guns, violence in movies, etc. It seems it is part of the US culture to kill each other. I don't know why. I wish I did.
A good movie on this subject is Bowling for Columbine. It is really good. Watch it. What are you still doing here? I said watch it!
You are not asking because you are interested. You are asking because you want us to do your homework for you. Why do I think this is your homework assignment and not just a question? Well, there are 3 reasons.
1. You want "unbiased opinions". These are impossible to find in the real world, yet we are always asked to provide them by the establishment.
2. Your statement about the Canadian gun ownership has a misplaced 'but'. 'But' should only be used in that statement if your two statements aren't related or are conflicting. This means you have already made up your mind, but you want to make it look like you haven't. You are asking for someone to tell you that more guns = less crime.
3. Asking for "references". Nobody needs these for an exercise of the mind. The only people who need references are those that will be taking note of the references.
You, sir, are writing a paper by asking Slashdot to do the work for you. Judging by the high quality of answers that are available on Slashdot, I hope you get your paper completed solely based on the views presented here. It would do you some good to learn why using 'ask slashdot' to do your homework is a bad idea.
It's really not correct to compare Canada to the US since the societies are very different in key ways. Gun ownership in Canada is probably higher because there are more hunters per capita.
Also, the US has many more run-down urban areas where drug related gang violence is common, and I believe these areas contribute heavily to the statistics.
As far as what to do about the problem, there are too many guns in the US already to start outlawing them, that pandora's box has been open way too long now.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Here is an analysis which is biased from both sides: http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
I hope it proves helpful.
Report that elderly people are 50% more likely to commit suicide when they own a gun. - this one from a suicide-prevention research project at a university. Not involved in the gun / anti gun debate.
.
Report showing a positive correlation between handgun ownership and prevalence of suicide, homicide, and injuries / deaths of children. This one by Harvard School of Public Health, Injury Control Research Center
The list goes on... but the data is pretty clear:
1.You are more likely to die in an auto accident, statistically, if you have a little red Italian sports car parked in your garage.
2. You are more likely to die earlier, statistically, if you chain-smoke cigarettes.
3. You are more likely to die, kill someone else, or kill yourself, statistically, if you own a gun;
and most importantly,
4. I am probably subsidizing all that risky gun-owning, sports-car driving, chain smoking activity through higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, etc., to the tune of 35% of my gross income. And I'm not very happy about it.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
But how much does gun ownership reduce violent crime overall (if any)?
There is an argument, with some deceant support and reasoning, that if lots of law abiding citizens own guns, it will reduce the overall amount of violent crime (muggings, rapes, etc). Not only through direct intervention, but because crooks KNOW that people ahve guns and fear this fact and so don't do it.
Now there is just no way to measure this that I can think of, but it is an important question if you really want to ask wether private gun ownership overall causes more violence or reduces it.
My ideas you ask;
First off I think you should call it arms control and not gun control. After all everyone supports some level of arms control. Unless you think it's OK for the people who appear on the show Jackass to own nuclear weapons.
- Make a list off all the arms you can think of, in order of their destructive power. Greatest to least.
- Now draw a line, above which you think things are to destructive to be possessed by the people on the Jackass show.
This represents the level of arms control you find appropriate.The problem is to many people draw the line not for the people on Jackass, but for themselves.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
People who are untrained and not responsible should not have the right to carry a gun.
I see no reason to outlaw guns. I *DO* however see a reason to outlaw stupid people. I've been shooting since I was 12, and I haven't shot anyone yet. I know I'll teach my children to be responsible around guns when they get older, but right now they're completely out of reach (1000 miles away == out of reach).
There's only 2 reasons to own guns:
1. War (if you're a soldier)
2. hunting
I see no other reason to own one. Self-defense isn't a legitimate answer. Kick your assailant in the balls, run like hell. That'll get you out of most situations much faster than taking 15 seconds to draw your gun, cock it, turn off the safety, and fire. By that time, he'll already be all over you, and you're fucked.
"the people" means the same "people" that have these other rights:
First Amendment: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No one questions if the First or Fourth Amendments apply to individuals, why should the Second Amendment be any different?
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
Right....unless I live next door to him when his house gets broken into and multiple random bullets end up passing through my house during the ensuing firefight.
http://www.guncite.com/
This should give you all the information you need.
Here is a short list of things people kill other people with that should also be banned: baseball bats hockey sticks cars knives chemicals cigarettes sexually transmitted diseases piano wire ice picks Please, for the love of God, register your knives and take a knife safety course!!! THEY ARE SHARP AND DANGEROUS!
Cut the guy some slack, I think he was *trying* to be funny.
The poster in this comment mentions the Moore Documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Whatever your preconceived notions of Mr. Moor's work are you should take a chance and go see this film. It's funny and obviously it gets its job done as the poster was motivated to take an interest in the topic.
And to the posts that say this topic isn't news for nerds, I point out that many politicians are in fact nerds. And unfortunately the act of informed dialogue in this country (without fanatical rhetoric) is about as popular as math for fun or other geeky activities.
As Ralph Nader says "Anybody who is proud to be a member of the silent majority has resigned from democracy, and that's nothing to be proud of."
One important point that Michael Moore missed, is that while Canadians to have a higher gun ownership per capita then the US, they are almost exclusively long guns - rifles and shotguns used almost exclusively for hunting and protection from animals.
It's extremely dificult to legally get a handgun in Canada. It's been like that the last 30 years, at least. Controls on handguns and assault weapons in Canada has a long history.
Where I agree with Moore, is that Americans carry guns out of fear of people, where Canadians mostly use guns as tools against animals.
The idea that people must carry guns to protect themselves from other people is largely unique to the US, and I think goes to the high rate of gun violence here.
_Am
Lets put it this way - If you were a criminal, and you knew there was a good chance that the government had a trained miltary operative in the house you were planning to rob, you'd think twice.
If thre was another terrorist attack, with an army spread across the entire nation, we would be able to have an immediate response from the locally quartered troops.
People will not accept this though, unless they are forced.
Unrelated to the question at hand, but if you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, make some time these holidays to see it. It's an excellent film/documentary... very eye opening. The audience clapped at the end, and I don't think it was because it was finally over.
Guns dont kill people.. americans kill people.. we'd really shoot more people.. but it's too damn cold. We use our guns for important things.. like blasting holes in the ice for icefishing.. or filling shot guns with raid to kill big swarms of black flies..
They can take my guns when they can pry them from my cold living hands.. really.. they can.. then atleast i could have a beer..
The valid research on gun control is rather one-sided in favor of private ownership of firearms. In that, to date, there has not been a study supporting gun control that has survived peer review. Period.
... people registered their weapons, but then the AG decided they were illegal. They can't ship them out of state, or otherwise dispose of them for cash. They're left with turning them in to the police, or waiting until the police come and get them.
... a 2 hr video tape is somehow so much better tha 16+ hrs of material from a licensed instructor).
... What gun show loophole? Federal law requires the same policy and proceedures from a licensed dealer, whether they're at a gun show or in their store. Right now, this includes proper ID, a form 4473 to be filled out, the transaction to be recorded in an ATF-approved bound book and a background check. Dealers also have to follow the state laws in the state the gunshow is being held.
..." someone asks.
While on the progun side, there has. Two noted works are the studies by John Lott discussed in "More Guns, Less Crime" and Gary Kleck's "Targetting Guns".
Lott's research shows that allowing civilian concealed carry of handguns drops the crime rate, that waiting periods are useless, that safe-storage laws aren't, and so forth. And he has collected available demographics from every US county that has them available.
Kleck's work is held to be the best attempt at determining how often per year firearms are used defensively. Note that a firearm does not have to be fired to be used defensively. If I recall correctly, it came up with ~2.5 million times/year.
Oh, as far as reasonable gun control -- this is something I penned for another web forum on why there is no such thing -- in a nutshell, the Brady Bunch cannot be trusted.
I've heard people ask why the NRA and/or gun owners are opposed to 'sensible gun control', and figured it was worth another thread to explain.
There's no such thing as 'reasonable' or 'sensible' gun control anymore.
"What about registration?" you ask. Well, registration leads to one or all of three things: political favoritism; confiscation; or making a whole bunch of people criminals by fiat.
For example, New York City has very stringent handgun registration. Unless you have the political clout to cut through it, you need a lawyer to own a handgun, and stand about zero chance of getting a carry permit.
As another example, Chicago had handgun registration, which had to be renewed yearly. I believe they stopped taking registration renewals in the mid 1980s, which basically made everyone who registered a criminal overnight.
As another example, back to NYC. They required registration of 'ugly guns' -- what we call the so-called assault weapons. Then, by a stroke of the pen, these registered guns were made illegal to possess. People who registered were notified that they had to dispose of them and provide proof. If they failed to provide proof, NYC PD came to get them.
Or, we could use California, who did the same thing
So, given the anti-gun track record, we definitely oppose them taking that show country-wide.
"What about instant background checks?" someone asks. The Brady Bill provided for instant background checks, and they alse required that no records be kept by the government on the transactions (see registration, above for the reasons why).
Under Bill Clinton, NICS has failed in both areas. Instant, to the antigunners, now means 'as long as we want'. Thankfully, there was a provision that they had 3 days to respond, or else the backdoor ban would be complete.
They also kept transaction logs, and passed them out to every other government agency that asked for one. When Ashcroft shut that down, the anti-gunners in Congress promptlly used his following the _law_ as proof that he was an 'NRA shill'.
Thus, it has become apparent that anti-gunners cannot be trusted with a background check system.
"But what about training requirements?" someone asks. Maryland has training requirements. A local pro-gun activist had to sue THE STATE OF MARYLAND into complying with the requirements to provide the classes. Otherwise, it would have been a backdoor ban on handgun sales. Maryland is also not doing so well in its requirements to offer training classes, but various pro gun groups are picking up the slack. (Oh, and police/military training does not exempt you; an NRA pistol class does not exempt you
Last year, a 'compromise' bill passed the MD legislature, that would have provided for teaching gun safety in schools. The governor vetoed it because the NRA Eddie Eagle program was listed as an option, and it provided for hunter safety courses.
So, we see clearly that we cannot let anti-gun people anywhere near training requirements.
"What about $TYPE of firearms? Shouldn't they be illegal?" asks someone. No. So far, the anti gunners have gotten machine guns, suppressors (cut down on noise pollution), semi-automatic 'ugly guns', small-caliber foreign handguns; a few types of shotguns, and a host of other things. There also have been bills floated to ban: high powered rifles (hunting rifles); rifle scopes; small-caliber domestic handguns; larger caliber domestic handguns; any semiautomatic rifle and shotguns.
I think that covers just about every type of firearm.
"What about safety requirements for firearms?" Maryland, Massachusetts and California have those standards in place. In Massachusetts, I am unaware of any firearm that can pass their standards. In California, no polymer-frame firearm can.
Maryland (big shock) is a special exception, as they have a governor-appointed board that approves or denies new handguns for sale in the state. The same governor that vetoed safety education also did not appoint people to the board for 6+ years. The only reason that this did not become a backdoor ban on new handguns is that enough appointees from the previous governor's board kept showing up to make quorum.
Thus, we see that the anti-gunners will abuse safety requirements as well.
"What about safe storage laws?" a) that defeats the purpose of a firearm carried for defensive purposes. b) Given the track record of the anti-gun movement, I sure don't want them to have the power to determine what constitutes 'safe storage' in my house.
"What about closing the gun show loophole?"
So, there is no gun show loophole. Its a big, fat lie.
"What about ballistic fingerprinting all new firearms sold?" someone asks. Two small problems, the first being that it creates a registration database. The second, much larger problem -- it won't work.
First, to keep it simple, there are three stages to the life of a firearm, as far as 'fingerprinting' goes: new; used; and worn.
A new firearm has nice, shiny, sharp rifling in the barrel, which is worn down (we gunowners call it 'broken in') within the first few hundred rounds.
A well-used (worn) barrel suffers the same effect, but to a greater degree, years into its life.
Second, barrels, firing pins and extractors (the components that give bullets and casings their 'fingerprints') are generally designed to be replaced -- either as preventative maintenance; when they are broken or too worn to be serviceable; or to increase some performance aspects of the firearm.
Third, the breechface, the barrel, the extractor and the firing pin can all have their characteristics altered, and it is pretty trivial to do so. You could change the characteristics of a barrel with a steel wool pad, whereas the other components could be changed with a common metal file.
Fourth, some of the high-end firearms manufacturs (Beretta, H&K, Sig-Sauer) make their firearms to _very_ exacting specifications, which are close enough to the margin of error in the ballistic tests.
In short, so-called ballistic fingerprints won't work, and the anti-gun talking heads _know_ it won't work, but it _will_ serve to make legal purchase and ownership more difficult.
"What about mandating integrated safety devices, or smart guns?" someone asks.
The firearms manufacturers have been working on this for a _long_ time. Colt fielded a model in the 1960s that required a magnetic ring to operate. It was rejected by every police department that tried it as being cumbersome and unreliable.
And you have to understand, the firearms manufacturers _want_ to bring successful designs to market, as marketing research has shown that it could increase their markets by 40+%, but if there are viable designs, they're still somewhere in the R&D process.
And designs that aren't viable would be _extremely dangerous_ to bring to market, as if they either fail to function or make the gun unuseable at the wrong time, someone could very well get hurt.
There's also a large discussion to be had on engineering, useability, reliability, weight and size constraints, and so forth that impact bringing such technology to market, but I think I've made my point.
As one example, there's a video of Parris Glendenning trying to operate a Saf-T-Lok device, a device that has been mandated for Maryland Park Police. It took him over 2 minutes to clear the firearm, and that was with help.
In an emergency, a police officer or a citizen who needed that fiream could have been killed, and the perpetrator would have been long gone.
As another example, trigger locks are dangerous on loaded firearms, and ironically enough, can make some firearms into fully automatic weapons! (Really, a friend has a pistol that, when a trigger lock is installed, it violated NFA 1934). To boot, they're pretty easily circumvented.
"But if it saves just one life
Any society is an incredibly complex system, where you very rarely get to make a decision with such granularity as 'just one life', or one that has no negative side effects. In a more ideal world, our politicians and policymakers would be ethical enough to quantify the negative outcomes and the costs, compare them against the positive outcomes and the gains, and make an informed decision from there.`
If we were to assign an item the negative values of 20000 killed and 550000 affected each year, but on the positive side, we can list a range from 700,000-3600000 affected, it seems to be a pretty clear decision.
So, now, let's say item=firearms. There are, on average, about 16000 murders per year, and something like 3000 fatal accidents (CDC mortality reports); whereas, according to the FBI UCR, there are about 500-550000 crimes committed where the perpetrator has a firearm, so we can assume a negative range of about 570,000.
On the positive side, we can claim, on the low end, 700,000 people who defended themselves and their families with firearms, and on the high end, 3,600,000. (The best research I've seen is from Gary Kleck, which estimates about 2,500,000 defensive uses per year).
So, we are looking at a net gain of somewhere between 130,000 and 3,030,000.
If we assume standard distribution in violent crimes committed where the perp had a firearm versus defensive gun usage, we can assume that defensive gun usage prevents somewhere between ~21000 and ~90,000 murders per year, which is a pretty substansive win
So what's left, as far as 'sensible gun control'?
Don't blame the NRA for this, nor the legal gun owners. Blame the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March, MAHA, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Parris Glendenning, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the other anti-gunners who have twisted, bent, torqued and abused every 'compromise' we made in the past.
So, why should we 'compromise' any more?
This is an absolutly great movie. If you want some info on gun rights/control and wanna laugh your ass off at the same time, this is the movie for you!
http://www.mcsm.org/doctors1.html
_ de adlier_than_guns.htm
4 /sugar mann.html
...
http://www.relfe.com/doctors_kill.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/doctors
Quote from
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF9
"In addition to the human toll, the economic costs of not regulating guns are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that the lifetime economic cost--hospitalization, rehabilitation, and lost wages--of firearms violence was $14.4 billion in 1985, making it the third most expensive injury category. The average lifetime cost per person for each firearms fatality--$373,520--was the highest of any injury.
Such human and economic costs are not tolerated for any other product. Many consumer products from lawn darts to the Dalkon Shield have been banned in the United States, even though they claimed only a fraction of the lives guns do in a day."
In the end, it's a US$ and Cents question. Which costs more, to whom ? Where does the money go ? Where does it come from ? How much economic momentum is generated ? How much technological progress is gained ? Forget efficiency. It's the same as for cars, or oil, or CFC, or global warming.
It was a decision by a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal court), not the California Supreme Court (a state court).
Geez dude, if you need to carry a gun around to
protect your family, then do you family a BIG FAVOR
and save some money and MOVE OUT OF THERE!!
What good will it be to have some dead burglar in
your house? Or worse, what are you going to do when
you mistakenly shoot your neighbor's kid? Or when
someone who is even less smart than you gets hold
of the gun to play with?
go sell that stupid gun and rent a U-HAUL
oh.. and don't forget to VOTE. Thats the only
way you can change the government. Waving a gun
around does nothing at all.
Where else are you going to find a group of people at least willing to think about the issue instead of just having reactions?
That might seem like I'm trying to be funny, but really I'm not. I can't think of another forum anywhere where you might ask that and have a hope of real answers, whereas here there have been a lot of resonable responses.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not the guns, Americans are just FUCKED UP!
/Every/ human being has biases; there's no such
thing as a totally objective report on anything
short of a mathematics textbook. The trick is to
read all of the reports you can from all angles,
and evaluate them based on the most objective
criteria you can: which reports are most honest/
least deceptive? Which use the least selective
data, least emotional rhetoric? And can you make
those evaluations honestly despite your own bias?
This is a basic skill everyone should learn.
--Lee Daniel Crocker : http://www.etceterology.com My life is in the public domain.
As properly demonstrated by Joe Isuzu.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
no shit. here in california it's illegal to carry any sharp object capable of causing grevious bodily harm - like a pen, for example.
I say it all comes down to an issue of responsibility. I've seen too many macho, knuckle-dragging rednecks owning enough guns to arm a terrorist cell but whose understanding on the proper use involves holding "grippy end", making sure the "pointy end" faces the thing you want a hole in and pulling on the little "squeezy bit" when you want the hole made. Other people buy a gun and learn how to use them from an accredited gun safty course (frontsight as an example) and
actually know how to use, maintain, carry, and most importantly...when and how to present the weapon when it gets intense.
Contrary to popular belief guns are no more or less dangerous than anything else you can find in a home as long as they are *properly* stored. A child running around with the turkey carving knife he pulled out of the knife rack on the counter has as much damage potential as an unsecured gun.
Also there's the issue of guns and crime. Sure we've all heard the expression "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns" till we're sick of it, but it *is* a true saying nonetheless. We outlaw drugs and they're all over the place. We outlawed Booze once...that worked well didn't it? You can restrict and outlaw and ban all you want, but as long as there are criminals who will pay for the guns, other criminals will figure out how to get guns in from other sources.
Guns used in crime. This is a tricky one as the facts differ from person to person. There is evidence that the "Wild West" wasn't as wild as people claim. This makes sense to me as only a fool would start something in a saloon where everyone including the showgirls are packing some sort of hand cannon. Also there are the anecdotes of the idiots who have tried to commit armed robery of gunstores (some with police officers picking up their sidarms) and the results of such encounter.
Personaly I'd LOVE (not that I'm holding me breath) to see a law that requires everyone over 18 with no police record to start learning the proper useages of a handgun and to be expected to actually openly carry at the age of 21. It's a little harder to rape a woman who is packing heat and is trained in it's proper use. It's even harder to knock over a convience store when the clerk, the manager, the guy behind the deli counter and the guy picking up a pint of ice cream for the missus is armed.
But that's just MY dream and my opinions
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Certainly numbers are interesting and relevant, but positions of principle are important in an issue like this. I personally think of the 2nd amendment as saying that people have a right to protect themselves (a right they basically lack in England), and I think of that right as important and fundamental.
Reason Magazine is also a libertarian vehicle, but they recently had a piece on the effects of gun control in England. Consider this when you consider more stringent gun control in the USA.
Hi!
Swiss adult men has assult rifles at home.
Sweden has 3 guns capita and a lot of assult rifles in homes. (I got a swedish adaption of Artic Warefare, Swedish AK5 (FNC80) and M45B)
US got a lot of gun related crimes.
I think that the attitude around the guns are more intressting than the numbers. In Sweden almost every male of age 18 or more is drafted to the armed forces. A great number of the swedish population are expert marksmens (according to US Army) but still we don't see much gun related crimes.
To own a gun in sweden you need a good reason. If you are active hunter (with proper eduction and gun skills) or member of a gun club. If you commit a crime (even speeding, drunkdrivning) your license is withdrawn.
Switzerland has strict gun laws like sweden.
The right to use weapons are to great in the states imho. And the society is not qualified to handle guns, there is to much problems to solve.
(Excuess my horrible english)
You keep your gun, they know you have it...
If anybody ever ends up getting shot by a gun matching your serial, or you are accused of shooting somebody but claim you don't have a gun, then you're in trouble. Otherwise, not, except for those paranoid of how much the government knows.
I'm not American, so I've never really understood the gun registration thing, but from what I've been lead to understand it doesn't mean no guns, just tracking?
Perhaps somebody can clue me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
I own two guns, three if you count my potato gun :p! All are rifles, handguns were only designed to kill people. A .22 for plinking, and a 30.06 for hunting.
Gun saftey classes should be required for all gun owners. Although I do not think that all transactions need to be reported.
Go ahead and shut the door now that the horse has left the barn. Gun control is the EXACT same concept as banning DeCSS or P2P technology. It all could be used to commit a crime. The difference is, unlike DeCSS and P2P, guns can also be used to prevent crime.
$G
-- $G
I think Chris Rock (the comedian) said that gun
violence would be no problem if the price of ammo
was higher. If bullets cost $5,000 each, there
wouldn't be any innocent bystanders shot or drive by
shootings with dozens of shots fired.
Humm.. most guns imported are from the US! ACK.. prepare the dog sleds to bomb these freedom hating terrorists!
Guns just make (usually) little holes in people.
God ! Is the sole giver of life and death.
Ergo
God ! Kills people.
Although technically ture your argument is heavily flawed. If someone cannot get access to a gun and they choose a knife or a sword then their maximum scope of damage is severely reduced.
Assuming I have a 9 bullet handgun I can kill 9 people from a reasonable distance before anyone can do much about it.
Switch to a knife I can probably get 1 or 2 before everyone figures out what I'm doing and eith runs away or overwhelms me
Switch to fists I'll be lucky to kill 1 person unless they are alone and killing 2 people is almost completly out of the question.
The idea that guns have nothing to do with violence is absurd, with a gun I can kill anyone very quickly, as my choice of weapons is reduced so is my ability to unleash quick and deadly force and thus I can kill less and less.
Please dont claim guns are completly irrelevant in how violent a society is as it is an insult to the intelligence of the people around you.
--
nich
37 - what does it stand for really...
A later study by Lott and William Landes found that concealed-carry prevents mass shootings. This study is available online here. There is also a list of his non-academic articles here and a brief bio here.
Gary Kleck has also done many studies on the issue of guns, crime, and self-defense. There is a good introduction and an interview with him here, a summary of his work here, and a his own home page here.
It might be worth noting that none of the above studies were funded by gun advocacy groups, gun control groups, gun manufacturers, or any other special interests. They are politically balanced -- John Lott is an iconoclastic conservative/libertarian, and Gary Kleck is a lifelong liberal Democrat. (I don't know David Mustard's affiliation.)
Also, they have impeccable credentials. John Lott got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and David Mustard at University of Chicago. Gary Kleck got his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana.
There is an extensive list of articles on gun control here. The folks running this site are against it, but they don't seem to be connected to pro- or anti-gun groups. They have, among other things, an excellent chart showing gun ownership rising as gun crime stays steady and then falls here.
This should be enough to get you started -- feel free to post follow-up for sent me e-mail if you have any questions! --Robert A. Book, Ph.D. rbook "AT" pobox.com
Isn't Mike Moore an NRA member? Doesn't he own several guns? I would hardly call him unbiased, but I think BfC does its best to aim for the truth.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
I don't believe you will find any correlation between gun control and gun crime that cannot be explained through other social factors present in the society.
Take two extremes (and this is anecdotal evidence) - Japan where guns are strictly controlled and Switzerland where almost everyone has a semi-automatic weapon from National Guard duty. Neither of these countries has the violent crime problem that is found in the USA. The real question is not one of how prevalent guns are in the particular society, it's one of how prepared the population generally is to use those guns that are in the society in a violent manner.
The only thing that can be said about gun control is more accidental deaths occur from gun related injuries if there are more guns in the general population.
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of "evidence" which shows crime going up and down as you look at changes in gun laws which also conveniently ignores other social changes in the same time. I'm sure you'll see people arguing that guns are needed for self defense and that guns aren't a defensive weapon, but effectively a counter offense.
Personally I don't carry a gun (statistics do seem to show that carrying a gun means you have a higher chance of being killed in the US) but I believe it's the decision of a society as a whole as to what degree its citizens should be allowed to arm itself.
An interesting aside, I believe (IANAL - could have my sources mixed up) that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the interpretation of the constitution to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, instead affirming the view that the 2nd amendment refers to state controlled militias. Those that swear by the constitution as a defense of the right to bear arms should be aware that the Supreme Court's view is that you do not have that right in the US.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
But I live in the USA and it's a REPUBLIC. That means some folks are suppose to be representing me, but NO I DO NOT get a say in everything.
So no I will not be trusting them, because no they are not me.
The nation has a military and I should be able to have my own armed forces at my home to protect myself. But I guess you'd figure it's working with the government to call them to come and protect me.
For the record I do vote. I vote in general elections, primary elections and runoff elections too. Where I live I also vote in city elections, which are held in a different location from the county/state/federal elections. So when I vote I must go to 2 different locations.
I hope you are as good a citizen.
I work with my government via voting to ensure I can continue to have my armed forces and help fund my government's armed forces.
John Lott did an excellent job on this book and I would recomend it to anyone. It shows pretty conclusively that concealed handgun laws hinder crime.
The criminals mindset is self-preservation. If he doesn't know if Joe Blow off the street is carrying a handgun in his jacket or grandma has a pistol in her purse, is he really going to chance robbing the person? Statistics in the book show that in states with concealed handgun laws, the probability is less.
When searching for the right to carry guns, ask yourself which of the following statements you really want to discuss:
I have a 'constitutional' right to carry guns.
or
I have a 'moral' right to carry guns.
I don't care much for the first but rather be discussing the second. In other words, whenever I am discussing the gun issue with americans I do not want to be sidetracked from the real issues by "what the constitution says".
How do I do brain surgery ?
Should I induce vomiting ?
What plate voltage should I use on this vacuum tube ?
Should I put salt in my eyes ?
Why did they change the flavor of Coke ?
Is OJ a murderer ?
How do I put my name on an engraver ?
Home abortion kits ?
WTF ? Are the editors that self-absorbed that they think Slashdot is a massive think-tank with all the answers ?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
As a former american (now german) european citizen I stand startled and amazed before these comments that show so much of an utterly different point of view the majority of US citizens has on this subject. ;;;-))) )
George Bushs Iraq policy really becomes understandable (no offense to anyone!!!).
And that's not just all badass semi-facist rednecks, it's all kind's of normal americans, even slashdotters too!
(no such thing as a 'normal american' I know that, but go along with me for a moment
Like it seems it truly is the case that the USA is a country were a large part of the population considers owning or the right to own a gun an expression of liberty and freedom. A very fascinating point of view. It has something medieval about it. I really can only stand amazed...
Any other europeans here feeling the same way?
BTW:
I wonder how americans think about the worlds top amount of dead children due to traffic overspeed in germany. Probably something simular.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I have to agree with what you said. I also think that increased accountability might bring back faith in elected officials. There isn't alot of that here. People just try to get on with their lives, and if a scandal happens, its expected.
Yay me!
If you haven't noticed, the moderation system hgere is totally broken. Look at this "Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderation done to your comments)". Do you know where I got that from? my User Info page. This is dispite the fact that I regularly post crappy trolls like that one.
Perhaps instead of wasting your mod points moderating stupid, but ultimately harmless trolls down, you looked for comments that hadn't been modded up, but deserved to be, and gave them credit, the whole system would work so much better.
My view is simple. Gun laws will keep law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. Criminals, who get their guns illegaly will still get them. However, most illegaly obtained weapons were at one time purchased legally (see where I am going with this). So, if you make guns illegal, after awhile all the punks who get them from a friend who stole it from a neighbor will no longer have guns, and since they are the ones that use them the most for violent crime, all is well.
The more organized guys who perhaps can smuggle guns from over seas etc., well their really not the guys doing drivebys and home invasion robberies. Their crimes are minimal in comparison, and mostly against each other.
So, my theory, make handguns illegal and in 10 years violent crime from handguns will be nearly non-existant.
Or, maybe not.
Ideally, This should work. But most of the time, the law enforcement is not good enough. So it doesn't work well in practice. It is a question of whether you want to give up the right to protect yourself and trust the law enforcement agencies. Personally, I won't mind giving up my right to own a gun if it could save atleast one life. Even if it means I am taking a very very rare chance that I might be shot and killed by a criminal just because I didn't have a gun.
As the abundant statistics tell us, the mere fact of gun ownership does not a problem make. Couple the constitutional right to own guns with a fundamentally violent culture and what you get is "the American gun-violence problem."
Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms here, but I see America as one of (if not the) most violence-prone nations on the planet. Just look at our popular media; vigilante justice and the pursuit of superior firepower have been idolized for decades. IMHO it's just an extention of the same genocidal tendencies that spawed both the Manifest Destiny long ago and our current reversion to global imperialism. In the absence of an external enemy we're perfectly happy to kill each other.
Further gun control will do no good. Eliminate all firearms and Americans will just kill each other by other means. In a country where Grand Theft Auto is more recognizable to most children than the world map, can you really be that surprised?
I'm Canadian, this is my opinion, not any generally held view, although I think it might be.
I think it has to do with the gun distribution, urban guns kill more people, rural guns don't kill as many people.
Generally a gun is for hunting, target shooting, or protection from animals. Most of the used guns are hunting rifles, with small magazines.
If your gun is used as a tool, and you treat it properly with respect you don't have accidents like children finding a loaded gun laying around.
If you have a gun soley for protection from other gun wielding persons then there is a higher risk of you shooting someone, than if you have it to protect you from a random dangerous animal.
Simple analysis. Ask yourself "does keeping a gun within the four walls of a home increase or decrease the chances of someone living in the household being victim of gun violence?" Don't be distracted by figures for other societies; concentrate on where you live; if you don't live in Norway, Canada or Switzerland, their figures are not going to be applicable to you.
It is worth noting that a number (don't know exactly what the number is) of the crimes committed with guns are using guns that were obtained through legal means. If there was no legal means, it would make it more difficult for criminals to get the guns as well.
I'm not strongly familiar with the statistics, but are there statistics of gun crime in countries where guns were legal and then later banned. The logic of this argument would suggest that gun crime would increase after guns were banned. I kind of doubt that but I don't have numbers to support it.
For the record, I support gun ownership though I don't personally want to own a gun. I just don't find that this argument has a lot of merit.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The statistics quoted in Bowling for Columbine about gun ownership in Canada are not as applicable as one might think. The vast majority of guns in Canada are small-calibre rifles or shotguns, usually for hunting or animal control.
There's practically no legal handgun ownership, despite what Moore says in the documentary. (Although it's possible to own a handgun for target shooting, it's very difficult to get a permit that would allow you to remove it from the shooting range where it is stored.)
So while the guns per household in rural areas is very high, in urban areas it's practically zero.
As to the gun issue, I would suggest that you take a look at the U.S. Constitution, specifically the second amendment. Disregarding the nonsense that is "Bowling for Columbine" would also be a good idea. Then you can take a look at John Lott, Jr's More Guns, Less Crime. In this book, Dr. Lott analyzes county-level data for the entire U.S. comparing the level of gun ownership and their respective crime rates. Not surpringly, his conclusion was that in areas with higher gun ownership, the crime rates are lower.
An interview with John Lott can be found here
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636
Here is a highlight from said interview:
The best "research" the anti-gun crowd could come up with was Michael Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which tried to argue that early America didn't really believe in gun ownership and that our "gun culture" today is nothing more than a myth. This work has since been shown to contain outright lies and made-up research data and Michael Bellesiles had to resign from his university over the scandal.
True, but you don't have to do any research if your assertion is that people have the right to own guns because it is a fundamental freedom granted by god, the constitution, ect...
The problem with the gun debate is that both sides are afraid to give up any ground to common sense. Outlawing a semi-automatic isn't going to infringe on your right to go deer or duck hunting or even defend your family's home; but the NRA will fight any gun control because they fear that if they give an inch, the government will take a mile. Similarly, a big hunting rifle isn't going to be a threat to your or others' safety on the street, but the anti-gun people can't appear soft on any gun.
Common sense should dictate that guns which have no real purpose but to kill or asault people should be banned. Guns that have a reasonable use for defense or hunting should be allowed.
I think the constitution gives us a decent guide for this with the "militia being necessary" line. Anything you'd let a new recruit in the national guard handle should be allowed. The rest should be restricted to military and law enforcement. You'll never hear anyone lobby for that though; at least no one with enough money.
that's my two cents. feel free to disagree.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
All this proves is, once again, the government is really shitty at project management. The fact that they spent a bunch of money on shite has nothing to say for or against gun control....it has a lot more to say about money control.
I agree with Robert Heinlein:
;-)
"An armed society is a polite society."
It would be nice if more people were polite, wouldn't it?
These issues are vastly more complex than Heinlein's little one-shot sound bites would lead one to believe (as much as I thoroughly enjoyed Time Enough for Love and yearned to live in that world as I was growing up, entire chapters are little more than clever sound bites with nothing to support their veracity. It is science fiction, and good science fiction at that, but the key word here is "fiction.")
Yes, I would like to see people be more polite, but there are other means than threat of death by firearms to encourage politeness in a society. Furthermore, armed societies such as Israel, Palestine, Kosovo, Serbia, Chechnia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, etc. are hardly models of polite society, so I think we can dismiss the veracity of Heinlein's little quipp simply by taking a look around our own, contemporary, and very real world.
Plus, isn't an armed citizenry quite a deterrent for casual crime...?
It may well be (assuming citizens are allowed to "pack" as well as "own," something they are not in many parts of the USA), but it is also quite a facilitator for crimes of "passion", such as road rage, momentary madness stemming from anger, etc.
How do the two balance out? I don't know. Like the original person posting the question, I would like very much to see a dispassionate study done on these issues, and let the chips fall where they may.
My biases have been pro gun control (after living in Europe for many years and growing used to the relatively low crime rates there), anti-gun control (after seeing the atrocities committed by troups upon unarmed civilians in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. a few hundred short kilometers from where I had lived in such peace), to now a very mixed perception, and a conclusion that I simply do not know which side of the argument is more correct than the other, and can recognize that both sides have compelling aspects to their argument.
So I too would like to see an unbiased study, and contrary to many here, I think such a study is emminently possible, if one can gather knowledgable people with the professional and scientific ethic to place good science above their own personal political and social opinions. Such people do exist, and while they may have become more rare in this age of political conformity (from both the right and the left), there are still plenty around to conduct such a study, if the need and interest should ever reach the necessary threshold.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This paper, while extensively researched, falls into the classic "Correlation vs. Causality" trap. Like the RIAA linking a drop in CD sales to the incidence of Napster use (a conclusion which you vehemently decried), this study has proven a general correlation between gun ownership and crime rates but has failed to provide a causal relation between these factors.
The Correlation vs. Causality flaw is a classic trap, of which I will give one example:
"Men who use electric razors are four times as likely to develop facial melanoma."
So electric razors cause cancer? Well, no.
Electric razors are used in greater numbers by men in urban environments who have higher overall cancer rates in every category, because they are exposed to more carcinogens. But appropriately spun, the correlation sounds downright dreadful.
Instead of flawed studies like the one linked in the parent, I recommend fact sites such as GunCite.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
As most people here will be aware, Europe generally has much stricter gun control than the USA.
USAians often give the following reasons for needing "freedom to bare arms":
1) It reduces crime, so with guns you are safer.
2) In extremis, having citizens with guns allows them to overthrow the government.
A question for the Europeans (proper Europeans, not Americans living in Europe or Europeans living in America):
Do you believe Europe should have less strict gun control?
I've been watching the Smith and Wesson Cam for some time. (http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html )
So far, it hasn't killed anyone!
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. -- Ferenc Mantfeld
By definition, if gun ownership is illegal then it doesn't matter whether they will, or will not voluntarily give up guns in their possession because the law can take them off those people.
And the police being what they are, they cannot be everywhere at once.
That's a crap excuse. By that definition, why bother having laws at all? Why bother having laws against rape, when hardly any rapists are caught red handed by the police. Lack of policing resources is an entirely separate issue.
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
And who decides who is a lawful, responsible person? What if yesterday said person was lawful and responsible, but today they have become a criminal? You can't separate the two, either you take guns away from everybody or nobody. Guns in the hands of lawful people have the potential to become guns in the hands of unlawful people, but no guns in anybodies hands makes things safer for everybody.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
Er, yes, as would most people in Europe. Let's get this straight now, in England it's possible to get weapons for personal use if you're a criminal. But, you have to deliberately locate a seller on the black market and buy them. If they are found, they will be confiscated and destroyed. A lot of crimes are not meticulously planned with plenty of resources weeks or months in advance, they happen very quickly, sometimes without any thought at all. Removing guns helps prevent their use in those sorts of crimes. It makes getting hold of them for crime in advance harder.
First of all, finding a accurate statistic takes time to properly research and quite frankly, it's better to think than to push petty statistics. Statistics are only useful if you want to figure out how to fine-tune an economy or figure out there is a quantifyable problem. Saying "10,000 deaths a year occure from guns" only quantifies and justifies more research, not a ban on all guns.
As for the debate on gun control.
Buying a gun to defend your household isn't the only reason why you buy them. Many lawmakers and activists forget the reason we have rights to a gun isn't just for protection, but also for insurrection if we ever get into another civil war. In order for a people to stay free, they have to have arms to use against the goverment. Lest they fall into a state of slavery. And frankly, at our current rate of decention, I wouldn't be suprised if we had another civil war within the next 50 years.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
You're right. Guns don't kill people, cascade flames kill people.
The reason for this is exceedingly simple: only persons commit crimes, and the tool of choice for the commision of any particular crime is irrelevant. After all, some of the most gruesome crimes commited in the US have not involved firearms. For example, Ted Bundy seemed to prefer knives. Shepard was not killed with a pistol - he was beaten and left to die. And of course, we have had people dragged to death by trucks.
One could actually make a very good argument that even banning, confiscating, and destroying all firearms in the country would not make one immune to crime. Because, as I have pointed out, you can still be beaten (with fists, baseball bats), stabbed (kitchen knives, shanks), burned(hairspay and lighter), blown up (bathtub plastique - see the AC),etc.
In fact, in following the gun control debate (and many other debates), I am often reminded of George Carlin's rant about living in a world made entirely of Nerf. It is, after all, the only way to be assured of safety.
It may have some bias to it, but every news item does. I was actually impressed with this movie, it really does bring out several key points that most people don't ever think about... especially coming from Marilyn Manson, I'm impressed! The movie almost goes back and forth between it's bias, and it makes some good points, and some that are not so good. See for yourself, see the facts as they are presented... and criticize/critically reason for yourself - I'm sure you'll discover some amazing insights.
I believe CA is working on this...
Basically, if you're up against a hardened criminal with a big gun, do you really think your little pistol is going to scare him off? Of course not. This guy has been around too much. He might well have shot at people before. He doesn't really care too much about his rotten, stinking life anyway. He has little to loose. You have never shot at anybody before. You have no clue as to how you would react. And you're probably not good at it anyway.
you can't deter someone if that someone thinks he is better than you and/or have less to loose
Well, that sniper, well you guys taught him all he needed to know about killing people, and you taught him that it was actually an OK thing to do with your enemies. Then, it is too late to tell him that "you're not supposed to shoot at others than we tell you to". It just isn't possible. The guys who want guns the most is the last people on earth you should give it to.
But, to end these ramblings. I don't think it is about guns per se, it is about a culture that says that shooting at people is a legitimate way to use a gun. That's where it goes wrong. I think you'd find that shooting crimes would go down if you got rid of that attitude. Guns are for gathering food. Not self-defence. No armed revolution. But that's awfully hard to do.
But then, this was an opinion, not what you were asking for.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Every hour, 645.3 children are killed by lawn darts.
Most lawn darts are never ultimately used in the defense of a home. But they claim thousands of lives every year nevertheless. An angry spouse might turn to a lawn dart in the heat of an argument with tragic consequences. A suicidal teen reaches for the dart instead of reaching out for help.
Worse yet, 67.3% of all lawn darts are stolen from law-abiding homes, ending up on the black market and used against innocent victims, contributing to the dark, rising tide of lawn dart violence.
Stop the madness. Write your congressperson today and demand an end to this scourge.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
As others in this thread have mentoned (but are only scored at 1 as I write this), John Lott was trying to prove the opposite of his book title. Turns out the evidence proved to him that a "more armed" community will have less gun violence (and other violent crimes) than "less armed" communities. He published his findings honestly.
Please, mod these other folks up in this thread, they were here first but somehow were not posted with a +2 like this post.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Absolutely true.
- Guns kill people
- Napster pirates mp3's
- Kazaa pirates mp3's, software, movies
- Violent FPS's (Quake, etc.) cause teen violence
- PC's cause copyright theft
- VCR's and PVR's steal tv shows and movies
- Open source code causes security breakins
- Email causes spam
- Slashcode causes misspellings, poor grammar and duplicate story postings
Seeing this list makes me think I've been warped to a planet of f*cking sheep who are controlled by the inanimate objects around them.This movie (as well as much of Moore's other output) has been discredited time and time again, even by writers on the left who agree with his basic opinions. By all reports it is staged, manipulated, and completely worthless as far as getting unbiased data about the gun-control debate.
See:
From Spinsanity
From LA Weekly
From the National Post
From the Weekly Standard
From The Globe and Mail
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
Might as well ask for unbiased studies showing which major religion can show 'most souls salved / saved.' Too many people are just too polarized by questions like this. If an unbiased study ever existed, it's surely been discredited and buried by the extremists long since.
If guns were completely abolished, imagine the rap videos on MTV. Snoop and Dre rapping about how their rolled on some suckas with their broadswords and morning stars? Somehow that seems way cooler than taking pot shots at people from the safety of your convertible.
cpeterso
Here is the address of a statistic search engine from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
l
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.htm
The page has many search options - I tried searching for unintentional firearm related deaths, separated by age. Interestingly, you are most likely to die by gun (unintentionally) if you are from 15-25, and second most likely if you are 35-45. My take is you are most likely to accidentally kill yourself or others as a teen, or when going through a mid life crisis - WATCH OUT!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Some good documents on gun control:
S ome back and forth arguments (mostly factual) about it's validity can be found here: http://daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustar d_Controversy.html
9 -1&q=related%3Awww.cato.org%2Fpubs%2Fpas%2Fpa-284. html
9 -1&q=%22Defensive+Use+of+Firearms%22
Lott/Mustard study - compares crime statistics for "shall-issue" (if your qualified - you must receive a permit) concealed carry states and "may-issue" (if the Sheriff thinks you need it). (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf)
There's interesting numbers in the FBI Unified Crime report.
Also David Kopel has an article in the St. Louis University Public Law Reveiw Journal (1993 Volume 12) - titled "Peril or Protection? The risks and benefits of handgun prohibition." Good article and has typical scholarly bibliography of other useful sources.
Cato institute article on concealed carry success in Florida: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
Google link of related sites: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-885
There's a lot made of "Defensive Use of Firearms" numbers. Google link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-885
And finally: check out http://gunhoo.com
I don't remember the quote exactly, but it went something like this:
For the first time in history, a nation has full and complete gun control
Adolph Hitler - 1937
Guns aren't death rays, you know. A few years ago there was a bank shootout in Florida, I believe. One of the men who was robbing the bank and then involved in the shootout had a portion of his heart blown off by a police officer. The man went on to fire at the police for about ten more minutes before dying.
My sense is that gun control has little correlation (positive or negative) with gun violence, but rather economic disparity, particularly race-motivated disparity is the driving force, both in the US and Britain. I'll say tongue in cheek that Canadians are all equally poor, and hence less prone to violent crime. (Note also that while the rates are lower overall in Canada, race still plays an unfortunate role), whereas the Swiss are all equally rich. ;-)
I should also point out that while there might be more guns per cap in Canada, the vast majority are hunting rifles that require permits. Unlike Americans, we can't just walk in to the local Guns'R'Us and buy a handgun.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
I'm occasionally mystified by the choice postings for /. headlines, but this is an all-time low. That's all I have to say.
"We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
What would be better..a world in which EVERYONE had a gun, or a world where NO-ONE had a gun?
Wrong. More strictly, it's dp/dt that causes the damage. The bullet is not exerting a force. The friction force is by the tissue on the bullet resulting in energy loss by the bullet.
Systems break down. Even injustice becomes popular at times, such as in the post-Civil War South in which officials were sometimes even active conspirators with or members of an increasingly violent Klan. More recently, there's been people overriding logic with their emotions wrt terrorism...
Revolution is a last resort. Nobody's advocating revolution now, but it wouldn't be that swift to lack the means if it ever becomes necessary.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
With all this talk of carring guns to defend yourself, has it occured to anyone that they are a purely offensive weapon?
Please mod up my parent comment.
Also, from the defenders standpoint, fighting someone without a gun gives you 2 immediate options:
stay and fight or run away.
Both are severly limited by the instaneous and absolute nature of a gun.
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
Bowling for Columbine is an interesting movie, but keep in mind that Michael Moore tends to be very loose with his facts. At one point, he repeats a "fact" that someone mentioned that Canada has 10 million households and 7 million guns and he incorrectly concludes that 70% of Canadians have a gun.
In fact, gun ownership (particularly handgun ownership) is much lower in Canada. Only 22% of Canadian households have a gun, as opposed to 49% of American households. But most of the Canadian guns are hunting rifles and such. When you look specifically at handguns, only 2% of Canadian households have a handgun, as opposed to 25% of Americans. These are 1996 figures. It's ironic that Moore would get these facts wrong, since they would tend to support his belief that guns cause violence.
-a
For a shooting to take place (in the US), you need 1) an American and 2) a gun. Now a way of preventing shootings is to remove one of the ingredients. Either get rid of guns or get rid of Americains ;-)
Fight the Power! Americans out of the US! NOW!
People willing to die for thier fundamental freedoms? Sheesh what extremists! They take after those founding fathers I'll tell ya!
Okay, we'll never get a consensus to ban firearms in this country (although some municipalities have).
How about this: A gun license should be as hard to get as a driver's license.
This would mean a written exam on safty, a practical exam on basic marksmanship, maintanience, and safety.
Gun inspections like car inspections would probably be too difficult for existing guns. But at least an inspection for new firearms, to ensure they're being sold with triggerlocks and the like. I can understand why some people wouldn't want a triggerlock on (I think they're stupid, since they're much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, but that's a compelling fantasy for many). But I think every gun should have one, so that it has to be a proactive choice to not use one.
I'm sure the NRA would frantically hate this idea, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing that people who bought guns legally at least demonstrated that they could pick "no" on a multiple choice test asking "is it okay to leave a loaded gun in the bedside table."
My video compression blog
Try looking at:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics
by John R., Jr. Lott
Can anyone point to a democracy that has been saved from totalitarianism by widespread gun ownership?
On the contrary I can think of a zillion countries wehre widespread gun ownership has led to an absolute loss of rights and freedom to rampaging local warlords who wind up outgunning the forces of law and order.
I think the idea that guns protect people from state oppression is an absolute myth which cannot be substantiated by any real world example.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
I live in Europe. Here, al least in my country, it is very strange to own a gun. Some people have rifles for hunting but I guess that they are less than 1%. The average person in the street has never seriously considered buying a gun. The average opinion here is totally against having guns.
Yes, there is crime. But usually no guns are involved. It is extremely difficult to obtain them, even for delinquents. As an example: recently a gang of thieves has been operating arround my city. They enter silently in houses during the night, steal some valuables and disapear. If the owners awake, they just live. No shoots are involved. Probably they do not even have a knife. Against that, people buy alarms, better doors, and pay insurances.
However, the father of a friend of mine had a gun. When my friend was 15, one day he took his father's gun and killed himself, with no clear reason.
I don't pretend this true story to be statistically relevant. Right, maybe he could have killed himself jumping out of the window.
I'm just explaining how we see the question from Europe. I'm surprised to see that in USA it seems to be the average opinion that guns are more positive than negative.
It has a lot to do with American culture. Canada's culture is different and they have less killing per gun. It is the same with most other cultures. In America one gets angry, grabs a gun and kills a loved one. In America guns show you are the big man on the street. In America thieves feel it necessary to carry a gun and homeowners feel insecure without a gun.
Do I have an answer to the problem? No I don't, but the culture needs to change, and I believe gun control laws will not make any difference. One must deal with the sense of power in owning a gun and the fear of others owning guns.
I think Homer said it best. "Facts, pfft. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts-schmacts."
YOUR AN IDOIT!
History reflects the problems that have arisen when guns are removed from the average citizen.
Thoughts on Gun Control
Same thing1
Same thing2
ERIC KROUT
;-)
University of OSDN - Department of English
December 2002
Abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between Slashdot editors and writing errors. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on Slashdot editors. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual editor hire rates at both the OSDN and the Slashdot level during the past five years. My findings demonstrate that changes in the number of Slashdot editors are significantly positively related to changes in the number of spelling and grammatical errors, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of reposts, bad links, and troll story submissions about "Linux 8.0" and "DivX on Commodore 64". The effect of editors on all other Web sites is much less marked. Recent reductions in the number of editors (see "Why We Fired Katz", Rob Malda, Lincolnhouse Publishers, (C)opyright 2002 for more details) can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in "your/you're" mistakes relative to non-editor mistakes since 1997. I also use this data to examine the impact of editors on the troll population, and reject the hypothesis that these editor-induced article errors led to increases in members' enjoyment or reductions in trolling activity.
N.B. J/K, Jamie. But I had to reply; it was too easy to roast ya
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
You should throw out anything relating to accidents.
The logic stands something like this. Guns are dangerous. This is a given. Cars are dangerous. Being drunk is dangerous. Working is dangerous. Even sex is dangerous.
Life is full of dangers and those dangers can produce some pretty nasty side effects. When possible, risks to dangers should be reduced through the use of various safty precautions and proper education. But I think in very few cases should something immediately be outlawed because it is dangerous. If that were the case we would all be walking, none of us would have jobs, and we wouldn't be getting laid. Since someone is more likely to die in any number of OTHER types of accidents besides the mishandling of a firearm, I personally don't see how it could be rational to use acidental shootings in the arguements against guns.
When it comes to murder, anyone who intends to kill another person could just as easily beat them to death, stab them, poison them, suffocate them, strangle them, run them over, or push them into a dangerous situation (traffic, heavy machinery, pit of snakes/spikes, cage of wild animals, etc) so that leaves impulse shootings as one of the few countable dangers that remain when you tally up the reasons to outlaw guns. Since those situations when considered alone don't appear to be that much of a threat, one could say that guns aren't exactly a threat.
On the other hand, if you're going to use any possible danger that comes with firearms as an argument against them, then I think we should outlaw children. Like murders they can be planned or unplanned. They cost way more than weapons to both the owners and the rest of society. They are bad for the environment. They are becoming increasingly unpredictable and some of their owners are having a hard time controlling them. Now days they've even been known to carry guns. To top it all off, they grow up to be adult humans. Adult humans are one of the most lethal and destructive forces to ever pollute the surface of the planet.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
This goes more deeply than a piece of inanimate steel and some chemical powders. In fact we should point out that there are almost several "Americas" where different experiences and ideas. This causes a lot of problems when studying the firearms issue.
In rural America crime is very low and people have a long history of gun ownership.
In suburban america crime is also low but gun ownership is not as prevalent.
In urban american gun crime is very high and gun ownership is low but highly criminal (mainly becuase most urban areas have severe restrictions).
Depending on which group you study, your outcome or statistics will vary. Gun Control advocates like to study urban areas of high crime and compare them to other countries. Gun rights advocates will favor the rural an suburban areas because crime there is very low an "We" look better compared to the rest of the world.
Fact is the non-urban crime rates favor well with the rest of the world. Our crime rates for inner cities do not. Factor in the American history of being very independant and mistrust of government--in the two first categories. Now put in the welfare state and dependanceon government of the inner city.
You can see where this is going. Its a mish mesh of crossing ideas and viewpoints that is a best a muddy mess. My only suggestion is to exmaine bery closely the arguments of both sides and your own beliefs and predjudices.
What got me (and YMMV) was the NRA relied on the FBI for its crime statistics and gun control relied on "focus groups". To me the FBI had no reason to lie. Now the argument can be made that gun rights spin the FBI numbers, and that is true--they can. However, my experience was closer to what gun rights were saying than gun control. BUt then again, I come from group 1...........
Cthulhu for president!
Large scale explosives, NBC weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical) are much more effective at killing lots of people than guns. While NBC weapons are probably out of the reach of the average nut-case, explosives are not. What are you going to do after you outlaw guns? Outlaw fertilizer?
Notice how similar Gun is to Gnu. Perhaps it stands for Gun Using Nerds. Hmmmm... Sounds like your aim for unbiassed comments is shot.
I recently got my concealed carry permit, so I've been thinking and reading about this quite a bit. The data is all over the shop.
Logically, and in fact, it appears that concealed carry reduces attacks by strangers. This is not surprising, since where CCW (concealed carry weapons) are easy to get legally, a rapist, mugger, or robber has to rationally factor in the probability of his/her victim having a weapon. Since it only takes one armed victim to spoil a whole career of wrongdoing, the bad guy is motivated to find less confrontational means of earning a living.
It's interesting to note that Britain, where CCW is almost unknown, has a far higher rate of assault, rape, robbery, and home invasions than the US, though the numbers are reversed for murder. The UK rates have risen ever since the early 80's when the handgun ban was instituted. During that period, the US rates (including murder) have dropped. The US has generally been easing CCW rules during that period, though other factors (tougher law enforcement, longer sentences, and the thinning of the young male demographic) may be as or more important.
It's also interesting to note that Canada has a gun ownership rate roughly on par with the US, but a much lower murder rate.
OTOH, it appears that easy access to guns leads to higher rates of non-stranger shootings. The difference isn't as high as you'd think - the anti-gun folks tend not to factor out things like suicides, and justified non-stranger shootings (in defense against spousal abuse, etc). That you and the other members of your family have access to weapons requires a good deal of mutual trust and respect on everyone's part (and good locks and firearms safety education to deal with children).
Pro-gun folks tend to ignore the accidental shootings. This actually makes a certain amount of sense, since this is a fact of life we've lived with forever. Even in places where handguns are difficult to get, rifles and shotguns have always been available (even now in the UK).
My reasons for getting CCW were personal and complex. I very rarely carry concealed, but when I want it, I really want it. I have not nor do I ever hope to remove my Beretta from concealment in ernest, but I'd rather defend myself than leave my family fatherless.
Perhaps you should read the Federalist papers and do some research on other writings of the guys that wrote that amendment. "Regulated" back then, meant that you were compitent in the usage of, and owned your own gun.
Also listed in there is what they expect of "able bodied" citizens. AND why they wanted everyone to own guns.
Look it up.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
While Bowling for Columbine accurately pointed out the number of guns in Canada and it's gun crime rate it was still somewhat misleading.
Guns are legal in Canada, yes. But they are far more controlled. You need a special permit to carry one and that permit is very hard to get; you must prove your life is in immediate danger and that a gun would actually help to protect you. Otherwise the laws surrounding owning and using a gun make it very difficult to do anything with it. People that own them rarely take them out for anything other than hunting or the firing range because if they get caught just having it on them in an urban area without a permit they'll loose every gun they own and any chance of ever getting one again.
I live in Canada's largest city [Toronto] and while guns exist here (both legal and illegal) and we do have shootings in the news every now and then I think I can unequivocably state that very few people in this city actually own a gun. If you want to find all those guns in Canada you'll have to leave the cities and get out into the sticks. And almost every gun you'll find will be an actual hunting gun. Not a semi-automatic sidearm, not a military assault rifle, but a hunting rifle. Ones used for shooting at deers and bears.
I gather from the media that a good many of the guns in America are not hunting guns, but combat weapons. Nobody hunts with with a glok 9mm or an Ussi (sp?). Many of the American's that support guns say it's for personal defence; I'm not arguing the validity of that here but it ultimately means one thing, those guns are not meant for deers and bears they're meant for people. In Canada that's pretty rare.
I'd like to see a better break down of those statistics in Bowling for Columbine. Per capita hunting guns vs per capita combat weapons in Canada and America. I think it would paint a very different picture.
The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment
by Richard Poe
Perhaps because it talks about a well regulated militia.
Or perhaps because it was written in a time before the US had the world's most powerful army, and should therefore be repealed as an anachronism.
Gund don't kill people, rapid lead poisoning kill people.
Taiwan only allows the police to own firearms and almost every window in the country has bars on them, even windows on the 10th floor. You can brake in to anyone's house and rest assured that no one will be able to stop you. The reason you live without bars on your windows is because the criminals are not sure which houses have guns and which ones do not.
Here's the real problem with Gun Bans/Controls:
Both sides proceed from largely false assumptions.
On the one side, gun control groups proceed from the assumption that guns cause crime. If we have less guns, we will have less violent crime. In every city, state, or nation where this has been tried, violent crime did not provably go down due to this. Many now largely disarmed areas(Britain, DC.) would be delighted to have violent crime rates back down as low as the days before the laws, when you could walk into a hardware store and buy a firearm with no thought of "licensing".
On the other side, they point to places like Kennesaw, GA where firearm ownership is mandatory by a local ordinance and crime is low. However it was low beforehand.
When I was a kid 20 years ago, most high-schoolers had no problems finding our parents firearms unlocked or knew friends who had them. But you didn't swipe them and kill other kids at school. Now we have trigger locks as expected items, yet we have this problem with school shootings. Why now, and not back then?
You can hardly say there is a direct cause->effect relationship to be found here. However it's a merry ground for lots of arguments and studies. Not enough critical thinking about what does work and what doesn't work in real world.
Personally I am with the group that says this experiment of "controls" has been tried thousands of times and demonstrably doesn't work. How many thousands of times do you have to try the laws and see they have no effect, then ask to tighten them, still doesn't work, etc. before you admit you are wrong? Find something that does work and LEAVE THIS PEACABLE GUN-OWNER ALONE! The gun control movement is full of utopian hypothesizers who remind me of old Soviet thinkers. "Well our 5-year plan would work, except for the devious interference of X and Y. But our next 5-year plan will do the trick you wait and see!"
The cities with the most restictive gun laws have the highest cimre rates per capita.
This doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you believe that people have a right to bear arms or not. If people have that right, taking it away would be wrong.
The reality is, when the situation comes up that people need to bear arms (the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto) almost no one will oppose them having them. The argument that people will usually make is "well, we aren't Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. If you think we are then you are insane, and trivializing the tragedy of the Holocaust." (Oh, and the new argument which is "Well, they ended up losing anyway," which is the argument that "people would never be able to resist the U. S. armed forces for long if the government turned into a dictatorship, so that's not a good argument.")
I think really it comes down to a matter of faith in the State. People who believe that various individual freedoms stand in the way of paradise on earth through central planning will always favor gun control. I mean, what was crime like under the totalitarians? I don't know what street crime was like, but the crimes committed by agents of the State dwarf the imagination in their enormity.
On the other hand, it is true. In many cases when people attempt to resist a modern mechanized army, they end up ground into the dust. Which is better, to willingly go to a relocation camp, or resist through force of arms? It's not an easy question. What would have happened if the Japanese-Americans who ended up imprisoned at Manzanar had resisted, en masse, the unjust imprisonment and theft of their property at the hands of the State? Would they have been massacred, or would the executive order have been rescinded?
I don't trust the State. I think its agents are corrupt. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I highly suspect if you pulled black gun crime from the equation America's crime stats wouldn't look so bad. If you pulled black gang culture from the equation (and the white wanna be's who are influenced by it) the rates would look even better. The most violent non war torn country in the world is South Africa, a country with a similiar history and socio-economic make up as the U.S.. To further ensure this is tagged as flamebait, im going to to state that this black crime wave that we have been enduring for 30+ years negates any moral superiority blacks claim due to the hardship of their ancestors. I don't know what the solution is but I'm sure tired of being made to feel guilty.
I'm on the fence with regards to gun control, but I shun statistical analysis like the plague. Especially the analysis from Guncite, which is loaded with partial interpretations, spin, and all the rest of it. Don't consider it anything approaching an objective source.
For instance, one particular graph on the site contrasts the increasing number of guns in the public's hands with gun-homocide rates. Because the homocide rates don't rise with the number of guns in society, the conclusion is that gun "supply" has nothing to do with homocide rates*.
I've thought of drawing a similar example in which I would graph kids' intake of milk on one axis and their rate of growth on the other. My conclusion? As you increase the amount of milk the kids drink to amounts like 10 gallons a day, you don't see a corresponding increase in the kids' rate of growth. Therefore, I've demonstrated that calcium intake has no effect on growth rates in kids. I'll call it the "Calcium Supply Myth".
Of course that's a nonsensical conclusion-- I've just shown that if you're already providing enough calcium, adding excess doesn't necessarily have give you eight-foot tall kids. But if kids weren't getting enough calcium, would their growth rates slow down? Ditto for guns. Once there are enough guns in society to thorougly satisfy criminals' demands for weaponry, it doesn't matter so much how many more you add. Certainly it demonstrates that adding more guns to our already phenomenal supply doesn't seem to "turn people into murderers." But that's about all I can draw from that graph.
What would happen if you actually reduced the number of guns in public hands to the point where criminals were going without? I don't know, and clearly neither does GunCite. Personally, I'm increasingly of the opinion that our liberal attitude towards gun ownership, combined with lack of regulation and training, does indeed result in deaths. That doesn't necessarily mean I want guns outlawed, however; there are good constitutional and moral arguments for gun ownership. But the "we can have it all" argument that our armed society comes without a price is just wishful thinking.
* Incidentally, there are other problems with this graph: it doesn't say how the guns are distributed-- if one person buys a hundred guns, it's a little different from a hundred people each buying one gun. It also doesn't say how many guns are dropping out of supply, etc, and I'm not clear if it includes military/police purchases.
A few papers have been written on the subject in the academic economics community (I'm an economist by profession). Statistically, these are the best and most rigorous analyses I've seen. I think there's also a tendency to be more unbiased because 1) the authors are academics, and don't answer to a particular lobbyist group, 2) they are typically focusing on the statistical methods employed, and gun control is partially an application to illustrate the method, and 3) publication in a refereed academic journal signals that it has undergone some anonymous peer review, and faces a much higher chance of being rejected if it is strongly partisan.
Doing a search on Econlit, I find the following published in top journals:
1) Duggan, Mark. "More Guns, More Crime" Journal of Political Economy 109 (5), October 2001, pp. 1086-1114. Somebody cited a working version of this paper below. I've read this article and it is well done.
2) a symposium on this subject at The American Economic Association Annual Meeting in 1998, consisting of 4 short papers. They were published in American Economic Review 88 (2), May 1998, pp. 458-479. These articles did not undergo anonymous peer review, although they did undergo editorial review and represent about 8 different authors (writing in pairs of 2) which were solicited by the conference organizer. Presumably they have some diversity of opinion on the subject.
Some academic institutions have acces to JSTOR, which has the American Economic Review symposium articles available for download. Most people will have to go to a university library to get these references.
Since much pro-gun FUD is about "keeping your home and family safe", one statistic that I'd love to see is this:
How often a gun is used sucessfully in a "home defence" scenario (killing/wounding/scaring an intruder) VERSUS how often a gun is mis-used in the home (murder, accidents, etc).
Has anybody figured this out?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Bellesiles resigned before he could be fired after peer review of his books found out that he had been inventing data, misrepresenting historical facts, etc.
He's the one source that is always cited when gun control activists start beating their war drums.
Do any google search to get info.
So, please take this into account when looking for information on this topic.
Coldmist
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
If people knew how to be responsible with guns, guns would be rather unnecessary.
What I thought on this topic a few years ago:
A well regulated militia
Don't bother asking for the source of the statistics I used - I used to be able to google for it, but it's long since gone. Remember to create a bibliography for all your documents, even the unimportant ones, folks!
-Adam
I think the real issue behind this discution (and the 2nd emmend) is: people should have the right to defend themselves. If we do not control guns, some people may get armed and kill defenseless people, but if we make then unlegal, those who can (legally or not) use them will have too much power over those who can't.
I think there's a better solution: we should not outlaw guns, but we should:
- Outlaw research funding on lethal weapons (either for individual or militar use. The gun problem between individuals also exists in bigger scale between countries);
- Outlaw factoring new guns;
- Make long term plans to eliminate existing guns.
This way, distribution of guns would still be fair (i.e., everybody has the right to have it), but we would have a less violent world, since the number and the power of guns would be smaller.
There's also a bonus: if we outlaw militar research on weapons, can you imagine how many great mathematicians, computer engineers and software writers (that today are working to make it easier to kill people and opress 3rd world countries) would be free to do wonderfull work for society?
Correction: Guns don't kill people, E=1/2mv^2 kills people
Analysis that calls itself unbiased is seldom really removed from some framework of opinion. If it were, it would be incapable of giving any useful perspective - the analyst would be at a loss as to which questions to answer. We're all much better off when the analyst stops affecting the pose of the disinterested observer and tells us what he really thinks. In practice (e.g. in the New York Times) objectivity has little to do with having an open mind - it's about presentation in a style that purports to give equal weight to views that have customarily been recognized as the two poles of public opinion on an issue. As long as the speaker's views remain couched in this style, he is exempt from charges of bias. But often, there's alot of research behind the story, and the analyst could tell us so much more, if only he didn't have to be unbiased.
DC still has a very high violence/homicide rate. The gun control proponents point out that the guns are coming from neighboring areas in which the laws are less stringent.
My outlook is that if that is the case, the people bringing the guns in will not care about gun control laws and will buy black market guns if they have to in order to get one. The law abiding citizen is most affected by these laws, not the criminal. Criminals do not care about the laws.
This is also backed up by my 8 years of experience as a Law Enforcement Officer. When only the criminals are armed, the regular citizens have plenty to worry about.
Guns are the technology, not the issue. The issue is should we give/allow someone the power to mortally harm another person. Had lasers been first and easy, we'd be talking about lasers.
The ability to arm someone to the point that they can mortally wound someone is a complicated issue. Your decision on whether or not that should be possible will decide your view of guns.
There are times when grandma or little sis should be armed enough to defend herself from abductors. If the situation warrants, killing may be justified, (self-defense, and no other choice)
However, I can also arm myself with the ultimate power: knowlege i.e. martial arts. I can kill people, and even people without that knowlege can still kill people. Just like a gun, I hope I never have to use it on anyone.
But when someone approaches me with a gun, in order to "elevate" himself above me for what ever reason, (mugging, assasination, etc) I would like to be equal with him, or above. I also assume at that time that he has entered into contract with me, that by doing unto me, he is willing to have done unto him, because I reject the notion that someone has a right to life more than another person.
People think that martial arts are a good way to defend themselves. They are a good way to do harm too. A grandma should be able to defend herself from a martial artist attacker. This is best done by a gun. It's a classic escalation problem.
Until we eliminate violence from humanity (never) we should allow equalizing technology, unless we adopt that violence is ok and that grandma and sis have outlived their usefullness.
PS. I live near the I-95 area of the snipers of a few months ago. Show me one person that did not want to be carrying a gun.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Glenn over at Instapundit (http://www.instapundit.com)
is a law professor at UT, and while he seems to fall down on the side of a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment -- he seems
to have read a lot on the issue -- and seems
to read on both sides of the issue. I'd ask him
for materials/references.
The NRA and such always whinge about government control over guns. And what? The government regulates the storage of gasoline, what kind of cars are allowed on the road, who can drive a car, who can own and do what with cyanide, even the production and storage of basic foods.
We accept all these things because they increase the general level of safety and security.
Guns are reasonably safe when they are handled by people with adequate training,and I think simple requirements that people get that training, and checks to make sure they're responsible, are in the same leage as other similar regulations.
a very, very good document, thaht answer to your question. And a funny story :)
The second one I read (but not completely, due to lack of time) is Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Kates and Kleck. Kates strikes me as somewhat biased against control, but at least he backs it up with facts (though I haven't checked them yet). Kleck is much more balanced.
Kleck's Point Blank and Targeting Guns have been cited as the definitive scholarly works on the subject. Haven't read either one myself.
Wright and Rossi's Under the Gun is also said to be very good.
There was an article on K5 about this a few months ago. Can't find it right now, their server is having trouble. K5 would probably be a better place to ask this question.
HTH.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
Factual analysis of gun laws in the United States. The title may seem 'biased' but it is in reality a summary of the situation.
Are you willing to put people in prison for defending their lives, as has been done in England? Guns and gun rights are the fundamental requirement for a free people. Without individual gun ownership you have no protection against a despotic government.
Remember Lexington Green!
I have and idea! Let's make harmful drugs illegal. That will fix the problem! Oh, they already did that? Problem fixed!
Gun control is just stupid. Those that want to have guns will, no matter what you do. The only difference is the outlaw will use there guns with impunity; as there will be no recourse.
ACLU President Nadine Strossen has spoken about guns in the past, saying that she leans toward the position that the second amendment identifies gun ownership is an individual civil right, not merely a collectivist permission to be part of the National Guard or for Guardsmen to keep their rifles at home like the Swiss. But the ACLU isn't a monolithic organization - they have a lot of central resources, and get involved in Supreme Court cases, but their real work is done by local chapters, who come up with lawyers to defend people in most of the cases that they work on. So if you want the ACLU to defend gun rights, get involved, get your law degree (:-), and find cases that you can convince your local organization that it makes sense to work on.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry
forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry me back to old Virginia, I'll even
Hara Kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun." - Hawkeye, M*A*S*H
Years ago, while living in a foreign country, I took tp carrying a pistol. A friend of mine suggested that "If you keep on carrying that thisg, you're gonna use it one day." He was right. One day I had to.
While it can be argued that it was a good thing I had it and was able to defend myself, on thinking it over I realized that carrying a pistol encourages you to put yourself in the position that it will be needed.
We don't carry pistols here in Canada. We have 1/4 the gun violence you do in the US.
It seems reasonable to outlaw atomatic weapons and hand guns. They are not needed for home defence and are used exclusively to shoot people. Still... I guess it can be seen as a kind of population control, which might be a "good thing".
This is going to be my fist post to Slashdot in a long time. However, this topic is near and dear to my heart. In college, I once wrote a major paper on this very issue. I got a D- on it. Why did I get a D-? Because (even though I was very liberal at the time) my ultra liberal college professor did not agree with my findings. Hell, I did not want to agree with my findings. After much research, however, I came to the conclusion regarding guns the Dennis Leary came to with drugs...NOT LESS GUNS MORE GUNS...MORE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS. Here is what I found. 1. Area with strict gun control laws (Washington, D.C.; England; etc.) have high rates of crime committed utilizing guns. 2. Areas that allow citizen to conceal and carry have lower rates of crime (There was an area in Florida that once had strict gun laws and switched to allow citizen to conceal and carry hand guns. Crime in that area dropped [statistically] significantly). My plan for helping to reduce crime. 1. Adopt conceal and carry laws. 2. Allow citizens to conceal and carry if they have passed a firearms training program and a background check (for fellonies). 3. Perform a ballistic finger print of any weapon to be registered. Yes, all hand guns should be registered in order to conceal and carry. There were more premises to my paper. However, you get the drift. Good, honest, law-abiding citizens should be able to conceal and carry. The training will help prevent the gun from being accidentally dischared or taken away from the owner. Registering and ballistic finger printing will help the gun to be traced back to the owner, if someone is shot with it. Of course, it will be impareative for gun owners to report stolen weapons as soon as they know they are missing. Is it a perfect system. No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it better than what we currently have in place? I think so. Thanks, Sean
Finally, Guns don't kill people, but they sure do make it easier.
for the same reason you can't copy protect music, you can't control gun ownership.
.44 makes sure all you kids don't grow. and that is why we have gun control.
everyone knows how to make guns... the patents are readily available. i could sit at home and make a gun. i would never shoot anyone else. the same could be said for music recording... no matter what you do, someone can ALWAYS record and distribute it illegaly. the criminal is the person that uses this common knowledge to break the law (killing someone or sharing the latest brittney spears album)
fun gun control activists on both sides... fuck the RIAA and britney spears, if you if you want to be down with britney, fuck you too. mpaa fuck you too. all y'all mother fuckers, fuck you, die slow mother fucker, my
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
"Never point a gun at anything you don't want to put a hole in."
It's the best advice I've ever received in terms of gun safety.
They've been demonized, but guns are really nothing more than really crude drills.
Sure, you can use a drill for good and bad. It's can make furniture, and it can kill aunt Martha, but there's no real issue of wether or not we should illegalize drills.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
well i'll start out by saying i'm not a gun fan to begin with, however if you like hunting or collecting old antique guns or a target shooter, that's fine cause your gun is being used for something useful. however the hobbiest, not one of the aforementioned hobbiests, or the person who gets the gun for "personal protection" is more likely to use the gun in a way it's not intended to be used, ie on another person.
,john mclane or some other hero type who wins the day by killing the bad guy.
the "personal protection" people worry me the most cause a lot of them think that since they have a gun they can shoot anyone that pulls a gun on them. ask any cop and they will say "don't be a hero give the person with the gun what they want cause if you don't you'll probly get shot"
this is very true if there is any doubt, call your local police station and ask them what you should do. if there's further doubt look into how many convient store clerks get shot or other people who try to be heroes, the few that do live are lucky and there's always the quote in the paper of the officer saying something to the effect of "well this isn't something you should normally do that person was very lucky they didn't get shot"
the fact of the matter is people who try to be heroes in that way 9 time out of 10 get shot, most die and some get wounded.
gun control doesn't stop people from getting guns it just tells the powers that be who has what gun. criminals will always get guns cause well they probly aren't registered in the first place and well they're criminals so what's one more law to break.
if you have the gun for legal purposes why should it matter who knows who has it. the government knows your liscence plate and it's registered to your car. they know your social security/social insurance numbers and they point to you. so why not guns that are rather violent weapons?
i think it's ok for them to know who owns it
however what having gun control does do is stop the criminal from being overly trigger happy. if they know you don't have a gun they will be less likely to shoot first and ask questions later, also it stops people from wanting to be john wayne
it also stops kids from having access to the guns and inadvertantly shooting themselve or others, ala columbine.
one last thing it stops is police from doing their job, now they don't have to violent deal with people who may or may not be packing a hand cannon.
i live in canada and we do have strict gun laws. we must have trigger locks on all the guns, the ammunition must be stored in another locked cabinet on the other side of the house and there's something with the keys as well but i'm not sure totally as ianal but i'm sure there will be someone here who can fill you in on that info.
also up here we don't have the opp, rcmp or other provincial police pulling guns on the person when they get pulled over like the state troopers do. harking back to the shoot first ask questions later attitude and the surprise of the person packing a hand cannnon.
as for our murder rate it's pretty low compared to the states. a quick survey of the statistics canada website will give you the info you need on murder by method
in 2001 there was a one to one ratio of shooting and stabbing murders, i doubt the american methods are anywhere close to that.
i've heard people argue about it protecting from invading forces, though last time i checked invaders was a military issue not some weekend warrior issue. i mean if an army comes in i doubt there's much that a single person can do and if they know the citizens are armed then it's kill them all and let god sort them out. so more people die that don't have to.
hopefully this clears up some issues, tho it will spiral into some annoying flame war more than likely cause i've found americans are rather touchy about gun control. tho i've found once a family member or friend has their head blown off, either accidently or in a way that could have been prevented, they change their tune about the whole issue.
Police carry to prevent crime, namely injury to themselves as they try to enforce the law. So, the lawful armed citizen is a Good Thing. Laws disarm only the lawful.
The vast majority of homicides are NOT the Dylan Klebolds wiping out multiple hapless innocents, but mutually-involved parties wasting each other over passion, business, a bunch of drinks. Quick, messy, irrevocable, guns or no. In these cases, yes a gun is effective, but also loud, often uneccessary, and puts yourself in danger if you lose control of it.
Sorry to break this nich.
I average person with the said items would be limited in the kill ratio.
Take a gun with nine bullets, does not mean nine kills. If he is crazy and just shooting, he may only kill one or two. But a trained shooter then maybe each bullet a kill shoot.
The average person with a knife would be limited kill, but a person trained in knife combat could kill more then average person with a gun.
Being that he is up against a group of everyday people. Look at the people who took over the air planes with box cutters.
Now an average person with just there hands will not be able kill more then one person, but take a person trained combat. They can kill with one good hit. I have see one guy take down five untrained people in a fight with his bare hands and feet.
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
Here are some of my offtopic threads on slashdot on the matter:
Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs
and another:
ACLU campaign challenges patriot act
Now, I personally do not think the right to keep and bear arms should hinge on the utility of it, but you can read more on my stance in the threads linked to above.
Literature
It should be noteworthy that some researchers- Gary Kleck and John Lott, I think- started out their research seeking to prove gun control lowers crime, and found just the opposite. Being intellectually honest, they switched sides.
For some good reading, with some solid factual basis & unrefuted citations, read Richard Poe's Book "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" (ISBN 0-7615-2558-0) or Chapter 10, 'Gun Control Advocates- Good Guys with blood on their hands'of "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America", a book by noted Libertarian Larry Elder. (ISBN 0-312-26660-X)
Poe's book condenses the research of Kleck and Lott into a more palatable format, while combining it with his own research and observations. An excellent read. Lott has statistically shown that in states with more liberal concealed-carry laws, crime rates against persons drop significantly. This is offset by a slight increase in property crimes in these locations, which is only rational & definately preferable to confrontational crimes. Kleck's research shows that guns are used legally and defensively to stop crimes anywhere between 800,000 to 2 million times per year. Gun control advocates estimate around 200,000 such uses per year, which is still more than enough to show the positive impact.
Larry Elder's writing style is a bit too conversational at times, but that stems from his main job as a radio talk show host. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote in the aforementioned book, Chapter 10 is right on target. Either way, the book is an excellent read.
The most notable book from the Gun Control advocate side was Michael Bellesiles' (formerly of Emory University) book "Arming America", however, he has been thoroughly discredited (Note: The linked article is very tongue in cheek, but nonetheless details his downfall at the hands of his equally liberal but intellectually honest peers.)
Now the Gun Control Advocates have nothing. Why? Because they have to lie. There are many who say in this thread, "The sides are equally valid, you can't have an unbiased analysis." This is wrong.
Gun control advocates must rely on distortions or outright lies to prove their point, because the facts are not behind them.
This is a harsh statement, but I will defend it anecdotally. My opinions I've formed from the aforementioned books, and from such sites as packing.org and guncite.org, and from the occasional spot check of their accuracy. If you want supporting documentation for my opinions, look to what I've already given you.
1. Gun control advocates often cite "Gun deaths" when talking about the need to control guns. The assumption is that by removing the most efficient means to cause death, the deaths will not occur. What they don't tell you is that about half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available. Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
2.When Gun Control advocates speak of all the children who die each year to gun violence, they include inner-city gangbangers as old as 24. While their deaths are tragic as well, they cannot be honestly compared to the suburban nuclear family with two responsible adults, actual children (ie, at most 18 years old), and a handgun for protection. If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms. Their utility, however, is unquestionable, so we allow their presence despite how often they kill people. The utility of guns is not so obvious, even with the 800,000 legal defensive of guns each year that Kleck estimates, because most of the time, a shot isn't fired, and it isn't reported, because the citizen is afraid of running afoul of the confusing labrynth of gun laws in any particular state- and they've already solved the situation.
Well, I think I've written enough for now. I've cited most of my sources in this thread, or the threads I've linked to above, so don't ask me to defend them, as I already have.
That being said, I enjoy debate and will reply promptly to any intelligent reply/challenge.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Some groups of interest:
Jews for the Preservation of Fire Arm ownership
(remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising!)
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols
(Gays for Gun rights. They rightfully need to defend themselves from some of the morons wandering around this nation. The Matthew Shepard incident would have been a footnote in the local police dossier if he had been armed and able to defend himself.)
www.packing.org
(Concealed Carry information for all 50 states)
Sorry for no links, but you all know how google works.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Writing as a Canadian, I'm a little concerned about your characterization of my country as monolithic. The United States, from what I'm told, is all about assimilation--a melting pot. The philosophy in Canada leans more towards a multicultural mosaic. Yes, small communities in Canada are often WASP bubbles, just like they are in the States. Urban centres have active ethnic communities, and are better for it.
I'm afraid that the disparity in the level of gun violence is not due to racial friction as you would seem to imply. Rather, it is the different attitude in Canada towards guns. For better or worse, most Canadian guns are long guns used primarily for hunting and sport shooting. Handguns are much less popular, and much less common--and also involve much more paperwork to own. There is a social stigma associated with owning a handgun up here that seems totally absent in the States.
Talk to my sister in law, who was attacked and beaten by her boyfriend, and you might get a different point of view.
This might sound cruel, but are you reading what you're writing? If there was a gun in the house, she'd probably be dead right now.
~Idarubicin
There are a couple of different reasons that America might have a higher homicide rate. But maybe not... Anyway, United Kingdom has a lot of cameras in public places. While I disapprove of this it might be a deterrent. How can you get away with the shooting if there are cameras trained on you at any given moment? I think the judicial system might play a part in it. It's very easy to get off light in America nowadays. There's no repurcussions if you do get caught. You go to jail, get an education paid for by the taxpayers and network with worse people than you would on the street. So now we have educated criminals with better criminal contacts.
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
First, I should say that I own guns, most of family members have owned them, and I've pretty much grown up with them. I am also a 'liberal', and I no incompatibility with these two points of view. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms of any type, within reasonable limits. I don't see a reason for private citizens to own selective fire (what the military uses) firearms. I disagree with the term 'assault weapon', because it's basically meaningless and it's code for 'scary looking'.
First, the problem is not guns per se, but violence and violent crime. The causes of these are well known: poverty and economic and social injustice. You can pull all the guns off the streets, but it won't do a damn bit of good unless the underlying causes are addressed. I don't think you could ever argue that guns cause people to be violent, or that someone is more likely to commit a crime simply because they obtain a gun. The logic isn't "Gee, I have this gun, now I have to think up a crime to commit." The logic is really "I want to commit some crimes, so I should get a gun."
Gun control is not totally odious either. In California, in order to buy a hand gun, you need to obtain a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which you get by taking a test similar to the test you take to get a driver's license. There's a ten day waiting period for all purchases (including gun show purchases), and you undergo a background check. These are all reasonable to me.
There is one other point that I'd like to make. A lot of people who advocate gun control have so little knowledge about what the process is to obtain a gun, and what you can and cannot legally buy, that it hardly advances their case. Every time I hear some shrill advocate talk about 'automatic weapons in the hands of children', I cringe. Likewise for the old saw about someone going around the corner to a gun shop and walking out of there the same day with a gun to kill their wife. It just doesn't happen. If you're going to advocate a position, it's really a good idea to understand the topic you're discussing, otherwise, people like me who know what the deal is just think you're an idiot.
Black market firearms are a problem, and if law enforcement had the the resources to go after illegal gun dealers like they go after drug users, the problem would be well on its way to being fixed.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Slashdot---- News for Nerds. Stuff that matters
.
Frankly I don't see how how gun control or resources to gun control pretain to "news for nerds"
This Story gets moded by me [off topic]
I would recommend searching the NPR website for less biased info. on gun control. I remember hearing something on an NPR station in the last week or so about a scientist doing a "study without motive" on the statistic of whether guns in the home made people less or more prone to deaths by gun shot.
This "Ask Slashdot" submission is a masterful example of trolling if I ever saw one.
A toast for lyapunov, hear hear!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
The Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks gun deaths as an epidemic. As such, they have correlation data for various aspects of gun deaths in America. They can for example, show you the correlation between guns in a home and suicide or homicide. They even do some study of gun death and injury among 26 industrialized nations.
h tm
You can see the CDC data on the subject at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fafacts.
From all my research, gun ownership correlates very well with gun death and injury in America. This doesn't seem to be true in all countries.
Guns don't kill people... I kill people.
(Thanks Happy Gilmore!)
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Correction: Guns don't kill people, f=ma kills people.
Actually, I think it's Ek = 1/2mv^2 that kills people.
moto411.com
In D.C. there are very restrictive gun laws. Dispite this D.C. has one of the highest rates of gun violence. To try to rationalize the amount of violence they use the argument "people are buying guns from states with less restrictive laws".
The problem is that if this were true how come these states don't also have problems with gun violence?
Are we to belive that D.C. residence are more violent that the surrounding states? I don't think so.
One thing to consider is that someone that is going to use a gun to commit a crime is not likely to care that the fact he has a gun is illegal.
Years ago, while living in a foreign country, I took to carrying a pistol. A friend of mine suggested that "If you keep on carrying that thing, you're gonna use it one day." He was right. One day I had to.
While it can be argued that it was a good thing I had it and was able to defend myself, on thinking it over I realized that carrying a pistol encourages you to put yourself in the position that it will be needed.
We don't carry pistols here in Canada. We have 1/4 the gun violence you do in the US.
It seems reasonable to outlaw atomatic weapons and hand guns. They are not needed for home defence and are used exclusively to shoot people. Still... I guess it can be seen as a kind of population control, which might be a "good thing".
Even adjusting for population differences, that would give the US many, many times the rate of gun violence that the UK enjoys.
I don't know about stat's, but here is the law in canada:
e fault.asp
a) You cannot, under any circumstances, own an automatic weapon, a handgun with smaller then 105mm barrel, or several other weapons (effectively only police/military can have automatic or "assault" weapons
b) In order to have any kind of handgun or "restricted weapon" ( (a) is not a restricted weapon, it's totally off limits), you have to heave a special license, AND special permission based on your need for such a weapon (eg, security guards, etc). In canada you do not have the right to carry a handgun or concealed weapon.
c) In order to own any non-restricted weapon (essentially a shotgun/rifle), you need a firearms license. I don't know the specifics, but it involves regirstration and a course.
For full info, see http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_users/guide/d
Personally i support gun control. If you live in the middle of nowhere, you have a legitimate reason to own A HUNTING RIFLE. Otherwise, what could you possibly need a gun for? IMHO, gun control isn't about taking away guns so much as making sure that the people who have them are responsible. The reason there are so few non-Palestinian-related (that's a whole nother issue) gun deaths in Israel is that everyone, and i mean EVERYONE there learns to safely use guns. They are a way of life.
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
In general for research it is better to find biased sources that clearly state their arguments and methods, than to look for "unbiased" ones to follow. Read up from allot of different sources, especially academic ones (www.jstor.org is a great place to find journals, but you may have to get onto a college campus to access it) and thumb through their footnotes. Where are they getting their information? How are they using the data? How good it their argument? Then make your own mind up based on all these biased sources.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
Look how it's affecting crime in Japan...
When I lived in Japan there was (and still is) no gun crime to speak of.
I'd argue this is because, quite simply, there are no guns to be had in Japan. Most cops don't even carry them.
There are plenty of crazy people there. Some will try to beat you, some will try to stab you, but they cannot shoot you. Even yakuza turn their guns into the police stations when they "retire". Most Japanese will never see a gun in their lives, and they have no reasonable fear of ever being killed by one.
I liked the feeling that I had no chance of being shot no matter where I was or what time of night I was out (or how much money I was carrying).
I have never had that feeling back in the States.
It's all about escalation and retaliation. For some reason most people here in the US will readily esclate to the N'th degree in the name of self-defense.
Guns don't cause violence.
Gun control doesn't cause violence.
Violence occurs because of societal reasons, guns are merely a tool used to enact the violence.
As such, trying to find statistics is really quite meaningless - the best that you'll be able to do is show whether a society is, in general, more or less violent than a neighbouring one.
Those who argue "Gun control gives the criminals a free hand" neglect to think about the economic affects that happen if guns are strictly controlled.. that is, they get much more expensive, even on the black market. (Perhaps especially so). They also neglect to realize that when everybody in the society is armed, you may be able to defend yourself from a criminal, but the criminal is much more likely to be ready to kill as well.
Those who argue "No gun control lets all criminals attain guns" miss the issue that violence is going to occur regardless - whether it be gun, knife or other, and being able to protect yourself is a valid concern.
That all being said, I am for fairly tight gun control, not only for the economic affects, but simply for the reason that guns, specifically automatic weapons, make it far too easy for a violent impulse to become a very deadly reality.
Against a determined criminal, I'll admit that gun control will likely do nothing. But the lack of gun control does just as little against a determined criminal - they're going to commit the crime anyway. What it does do is raise the stakes we all play at. So instead of you get mugged but survive, it becomes you start to get mugged and someone dies.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
the way i see it is ... Stupid people use guns to kill ... so you have two options .. get rid of the guns or the stupid people ... you decide
Gun defenders take a utilitarian approach: well, Y is NOT > X, so it's OK! As long as X > Y, we're OK, so it becomes a body count.
Both neglect some moral dimensions: does a man have a right to defend himself? Or do we pass that defense to somebody who should do what we won't do for ourselves? For low pay?
For enlightenment, read Nation of Cowards.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The other day I was exercising my right to bear arms by wearing a short-sleeved golf shirt in the middle of a snowstorm. My neighbor assumed I was criminally insane and shot and killed me. This proves that someone else will post on this topic after I'm gone. Sig: End racism - kill everyone
This does not address the question of where to find objective information and statistics related to the gun control issue. What I have is a simple question. Give the Second Amendment: 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; and the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; what is the constitutional basis for federal gun control laws? In one instance, the Constitution says gun ownership (actually, weapons in general) must be allowed. In the case of the 10th Amendment, it says that the Government can only do what is expressly stated it can do in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say the Government can restrict gun ownership (or outlaw technology for copying DVDs for that matter)?
Actually all of the first ten amendments directly refer to the rights of individuals, with a bonus declaration of state's rights in the 10th. I really wish people who like to debate the amendments and their meaning would take a little time to read the Federalist Paper (google for Gutenburg) - learn the reasons for the constitution and amendment right from the authors.
Naaaahh, that would ruin some people's perfectly good bias ....
If you're (notice the spelling) going to call someone an idiot, at least learn to spell.
And if, as the above poster said, England just includes more things in their crime rate, there's not much left to say.
...as to dignify this with a response? Slashdot is (was?) better than this. What's next? 'Ask Slashdot: Women- veiled or fleshy'?
although it is from 1988 this is still the best paper I've ever read on the subject. He covers all of the pertinent points and more importantly he lists his refereces.
I'm glas you take your responsibility wrt guns seriously, the problem is too many gun owners don't.
Which is why we fail to meet the first part of the second A: a well regulated militia.
To accomplish this, the state should be able to require a minimum level of training culminating in a license for gun ownership. This would not infringe on the right to keep an bear so long as the licensing process was open to all and not unreasonably expensive nor difficult.
Wrt to your attempt to troll atheists, many of the founders were Deists, which is more similar to Atheism than it is to Christianity (both deny revealed religion).
It strikes me that the answer to whether or not guns should be controlled is as simple as finding out if there is a large percentage of spontaneous gun violence. Because if most gun violence is premeditated, the gun means nothing -- they only opted to use that out of opportunity instead of a knife. But if it turns out that a disproportionate amount of gun violence is spontaneous, then that implies that the gun enables that behavior.
Unfortunately my in-depth 30-second google searching couldn't turn up any survey/study on this... but if anyone should find it later (including myself) maybe they'll post it in reply.
where'd my typewriter go?
To try to show an unbiased opinion, I will draw references from both sides of the aisle.
As I mentioned the other day, the core of the problem is not guns, it is people. Guns have become the target because it is easier to make blanket decisions about the intermediary than to try to address the real problem of trying to figure out how to pick which people do not deserve to have them.
On the other side, people choose to fouus on banning abortion clinics and the idea of abortion for the same reason. These are easier targets to deal with. It is more difficult to try to deal with the issue that women who decide to have abortions are the problem.
In either of these cases the real problem is people, and ploiticians who want to "take things away" do not want to focus issues on individuals, or stratified groups, because it looks like discrimination and is bad for them politically. So they target the intermediaries... guns, or abortion, or some other soulless impersonal thing or idea.
If you want an uncompromising political group, there's JPFO - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Or there's Gun Owners of America, though they also like to push the pro-hunting agenda.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The unbiased analysis you seek is just not humanly possible. Everyone has an opinion on the right to bear arms vs. gun control debate, and anyone willo become emotional defending his or her position
I don't think it's true that everyone has such an emotional position on this issue that they cannot look at the gun issue fairly. For example, I don't own a gun and am not interested in owning one; however I don't mind if my responsible and law abiding neighbors have one.
The problem isn't the non-existence of unbiased people, its that the field of contention is is being occupied by extremists on either side, which means there is little hope for progress of any kind in this "debate", which mostly consists of people talking past each other, when they aren't insulting each other.
You can take this test on any issue: has anything you have heard or read about it caused you to change or moderate your position? If not, then you're in extremist mode. This doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily, but that if you are wrong you will never find out.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"We need bullet control"
For what it's worth, if I have a steady rest (as little as a solid bit of ground to lay on, or as fancy as a pair of crossed sticks) I can put 5 shots into a 2 inch circle at 100 yards with all but 1 of my rifles. (The exception is a replica BAR, it looks authentic, and is authentic in it's poor performance, minus the full-auto part of course.)
Hell, I even have 2 handguns that I can put 5 (or 6) rounds into a 4 inch circle at 100 yards..and one of those is actualy good for the same 2 inch circle as my rifles.
I think I've got bullet control well in hand.
Guess what! None of my firearms has ever caused bodily harm to any other person. I think MrDog is right! Bullet control is 100% mandatory for the safe ownership and operation of a firearm.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
As far as I can recall, the per-capita gun ownership rate in the US is pretty close to 1 gun/person. It's much lower than that in Canada.
Sorry, someone else may have already provided this information for you, but I get tired of sifting through flamewars to get to meaningful information.
I was once looking for unbiased gun violence statistics, myself, and I came across unbiased statistical information from the following sources:
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
This site page presents firearms and crime statistics.
United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention
This page links to several data sets that present mortality and morbidity statistics, including deaths and injuries from firearms
United States 2000 Census
This site contains information about gun ownership and gun-owner demographics.
I hope you find this to be more useful than all of the squabbling.
Karma
Just like Charlton Heston said, it's all due to race-mixing. If we were to segragate whites, blacks, mexicans, europeans, arabs and asians the gun violence problem would go away.
No, I'm not a racist. And I'm not making this up.
Or, like the shirt the big guy in 'Happy Gilmore' was wearing: "Guns don't kill people, I kill people"
No, but at the same time I wouldn't put up a sign on my front lawn that says "This house is loaded with Jewelry"
I do, however, have stickers on my doors that says "Protected by Security 24", very large strike plates, solid oak doors, bars in the basement windows, a locked bar in the sliding doors, and top-notch home insurance that's cheap, because I've NEVER had to submit a claim. Also, the police and fire dept have never been dispatched to my street (which can't be said for very many streets in my city).
Granted, even with all of this, I could get robbed or assaulted. But honestly, I'm not sure a gun would help. Besides, I spoke to the security consultant who helped me secure my home, and he said that of the 1000+ houses he's protected over the last 20 years, there were only two break-ins, both because the alarm was not on, and owners left the house unlocked.
(Rant warning) With that said, I still don't think guns should be outlawed. Responsible citizens (which is the majority of people) should have the right to carry guns, if nothing else than for hunting or sport shooting. Being a big military history buff, I wish there were Anti-Tank shooting competitions, where competitors could fire 40mm AT rounds into hard targets, see who gets the quickest kill.
But I totally disagree with the argument that claims that armed individuals can better protect themselves. There isn't any more proof that it will help reduce crime than there is proof than NOT being armed increases it.
Phemur
He didn't bother to do any research about Australian history. Urban Australians have *never* owned handguns (or long guns for that matter) en masse, and the laws on handguns were already quite restrictive (nobody can carry a concealed weapon, for instance) so attributing a rise in crime to the changes in gun laws making criminals more cocky was a complete nonsense. He also ignored the fact that around the same time a glut of heroin arrived in Oz, pretty much coinciding with the rise in crime - a far more reasonable explanation.
Doesn't give me any confidence in his supposed impartiality.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
And what are your goals and what kind of data are you looking for anyway? The answers aren't going to be as simple as "strengthen gun control, reduce violence". Strengthening gun control in the US without doing anything else will probably not reduce violence; neither will increasing gun availability result in increased safety or increased political stability. Violence is a very deep rooted problem in American society, it is out of control compared to other western nations, and addressing it will require much more effort than a single quick-fix approach.
And when it comes down to it, people's needs differ: a wealthy resident of a town where violence is less of a problem may have the luxury of having grandiose notions of the constitutional role of gun ownership, while someone living in the slums of a major city may have more immediate concerns.
So, the answer to your request for an "unbiased analysis of gun control" is that you are asking the wrong question. You are looking for quick fixes and simple answers for problems that don't have simple solutions. Gun control won't make people's lives safer in the US--that will take profound social changes. However the willingness to accept gun control in the US would be an indication that the society has become safer, less violent, and less polarized. I think we are still decades away from that.
His findings were about concealed carry laws, not about "more armed" vs. "less armed".
Also, his findings relied upon data gathered almost exclusively from the United States, a society where gun possession is already common. As such, looking at what happens when you "restrict" gun ownership really is, in this case, what happens when you restrict it from law-abiding citizens, and does not take into account the long term economic affects that strict regulation may impose upon purchasing guns.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
"Oh, *shootings*! That doesn't mean that Americans are more violent than other people -- we're just better shots."
"Hey Carlito, r'membah me? Benny Blanco from the Bronx!"
Which simply means that if you plan on protecting yourself from firearm-wielding assailants then you had better plan on being armed with a firearm.
You see, you aren't going to be able to get rid of firearms. That particular Pandora's box is wide open. Not only are there millions of firearms that you would need to dispose of, but firearms are relatively easy to make. In short, criminals will always have firearms available to them. So when you start talking about banning firearms all you are really saying is that you plan on making it impossible for people to legally own firearms. Not only would that not cut down on the violence, but it would very likely make things more dangerous as then criminals would be assured that they would be the only people armed.
If you really believe that firearms are the problem I suggest putting a large sign out in front of your house saying:
This house is a gun-free zone
and seeing what kind of a response you get.
An armed man is a citizen
An un-armed man is a subject...
An American is a citizen,
The British are subjects...
There are more crimes per capita in Britan than the USA. comparing other countries or even states, countie's within a state/country will show this reliably on any given census
Honestly, I'm not trying to troll; however, isn't it quite possible that the author of this book that you put forward himself has a bias and only represents in his book those facts that serve his argument? Color my skeptical, but an inaccurate conclusion is an eminently likely result from an incomplete data set.
Just supposing that most anyone who knows me would rank me as lawful and responsible (some might complain that I'm too-much so), and supposing you don't break into my home or attack me, but supposing I'm lawfully drunk in one of those localities where someone with a concealed firearm can be drinking ... am I really no threat to you? Or let's say you walk into the bar and you're the post office supervisor who I quite accurately know to have unfairly denied me a promotion over several years ... it's like stock market analysis, "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."
The whole point of owning a gun is the psychological charge of knowing you have the power to blow something away. The design of the gun is indicative of whether the power is focused on wild animals or wild human beings. The law in my city is I can't carry a gun. When I lived in another state where people could carry guns I got threatened by them several times. The threats I've had here have been limited to human force. Any human male who can't imagine certain circumstances where he'd gladly - gun being available - blow certain other people away doesn't know himself well at all, and shouldn't be trusted with a handgun. And those who know how tempting it is to use a gun when it's there will respect laws against them.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans.
2 years ago, I would have agreed with you completely. However, in this day and age, I'm not so sure anymore. We have let many of our freedoms fall in the name of anti-terrorism. Also gun control laws are coming up more frequently.
I hope to (insert name of supreme being here) that we never lose our rights. Especially the right to bear arms. Now before you call me a gun-toting redneck, note that without the ability to protect ourselves from aggressors, the other rights don't mean jack shit. If we can't protect ourselves, our rights become just scribbles on paper.
neurostarHere in Australia, the government banned most guns several years ago. Ignoring the "selective facts" that the US NRA have published on the matter, these are the real changes in crime rates since guns were banned:
- crimes such as armed robbery, kidnapping & murder are significantly lower
- rape, child abuse, domestic violence are significantly higher.
I wish I had the URL for the govt-funded independent study (yes, there really is such a thing!) that was released earlier this year, but it's bookmarked on another PC. I think the broad classification was that "crimes of frustration" are on the rise, but "crimes of (something else)" are falling. Damn, wish I could find that URL so I could get the exact terms that were used
Read into it what you will
"I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else."
Listen, I have no interest in exerting force over anyone else. I have no interest in anyone ever finding out that I carry a gun, because unless they are a personal friend, the circumstances under which they find out will be a nightmare for everyone involved.
However, I have a duty to provide for and protect my family, and a duty to be able to protect my fellow human beings from those who would do them harm.
My desire is not to exert force over others, but rather it is to have one final chance to save the lives of those who would do harm to those I love.
As a matter of human dignity, how can I do any less?
The Libertarian Party Website is a great place to get anti-gun control information.
They'll have studies, statistics, and a bit of rhetoric.
Some stuff I've seen there and in their monthly newsletter:
Rape and mugging of women went down in FL and other states after they passed a concealed carry law, but went up in the nation as a whole. (I don't know the exact numbers, or remember the other states mentioned). Their interpretation is that criminals are more worried, because an armed woman is a riskier target.
Cities like Philly and Chicago that ban (and sue) guns have higher crime per capita than cities like Dallas and Phoenix where gun owners are relatively free. (But it could be attributable to the region, socio-economic breakdown, etc.)
The basic logical statement that making guns illegal won't stop criminals from owning them, because they don't follow the law: that's why we call them criminals. (Like the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" bumper stickers.)
It's not really related to crime, but one of the most popular arguments against guns is all the accidental deaths of kids. But the LP newsletter (and it might be on their site by now) had an article saying that bathtubs cause more child deaths than guns, as do buckets.
I maybe way off on this, but i'm up here in the great white north and i was kinda shocked that Canadians have more guns per capita. Even growing up on a farm i'm comfortable around rifles, and have used them all my life. However once having moved to the city, in the redneck capital of canada, i suddenly realized, i've never seen a really handgun in my life. And it got me thinking, i can see alot of people up here having guns, but i would be really shocked if those people took their guns out of their house on any sort of regular basis. And I think thats where americans get those skyrocketing number of gun deaths, what percentage of americans who are gun owner, take their gun outside of their home. Say caring a gun in the glove box of their car?
It may not be the number of guns per capita, but rather the percentage of the day that gun is close at hand.
If you can't fix it ask the 3 year old down the street.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ? If not, you are reaping the benefits of allowing guns in the hands of lawful citizens.
Would you be willing to put up a sign noting that you own a 60 inch plasma TV? How about one reminding everyone that you have a beautiful 17 year old daughter? If you are not willing to put these signs up, you are taking advantage of people with no TVs and no children.
For that matter, the analogy extends beyond reasonable ownership. In American History X the main character brutally murders a robber long after any danger is over. I would never do such a thing, but I want burglars to be afraid that I have some crazy motherfucker in my house.
The reason you can't find anything except dry statistics on the gun control debate from neutral sources is that the statistics aren't self-interpreting and can't address the things we really want to know, policy choices like how can we reduce the number of innocent people who get hurt. Opinion on or projection of the likely result of various steps is a necessary element. Ideally we'd have some laboratory with cloned United States (or some other country) under different experimental conditions, and watch what happened.
I try to start with the possibly startling premise that everyone favors gun control of some sort, it's just a question of where to draw the line. Starting at the pro-gun end of the spectrum, most would take guns away from prisoners. Or people about to commit a crime. Or the insane. Or children. Or the intoxicated. Or people in the presence of the President. As for types of "arms" -- another form of gun control -- it is important to consider whether to permit exploding bullets? Silencers? Grenade launchers? Machine guns? Tank guns? Whatever. The point is that almost everyone will draw the line, and once they have all hope of a crystal clear rule is gone.
The pro-gun people insist that law-abiding people are safer with easier gun ownership; they also cite a sort of psychological value in gun ownership. The anti-gun people say the opposite. Fine, prove it either way. You can't, because there is a speculative step that boils down to judgment, assuming you have the facts straight, difficult enough in itself.
Frustratingly, probably the single biggest problem by both sides is the witting or unwitting misuse of statistics, which precludes an intelligent philosophical debate. Much of the discussion is thus wasted.
For example, comparisons to other countries are very risky, as are comparisons in any statistical problem where the groups compared vary in multiple ways. Countries with liberal gun ownership laws include Switzerland and the U.S. Countries with strict gun control laws include Japan and the U.K. and (the cities) DC and Chicago. Why are the numbers so different? Well, what else is going on, including the violent crime rate, the usefulness of guns to criminals, the types of punishment for illegal gun use, the cultural attitude towards violence?
You have to look at the statistics in the correct context, and choosing one is sometimes tough. The number of gun deaths, or the % of all murders? What about the number of accidental deaths? The number of successful self-defense cases (pro-gun people sometimes forget the cases where the owner's gun is used against them; this is a frequent hazard for police officers)? The number of people who survive woundings with, say, guns v. knives? And so on.
Often people invoke the Constitution with Biblical fervor, but anyone who's studied con law can tell you it's rarely that simple. Besides, the Constitution was written by men, not God, and if it's wrong we should fix it. So saying "Second Amendment" is not a debate ender, and overlooks that the courts make mistakes, and states are not bound by the Second Amendment anyway. The proper analysis of the Second Amendment itself is a bit of puzzle, esp. with that militia preamble. Ask anyone who says the Second Amendment speaks for itself to explain that militia thing and the rest of the Constitution, in the context of real-world situations, and it becomes apparent that the literal reading may mislead and judges actually earn their pay. Also ask what stops the states from enacting the same sorts of rules -- many have (I don't know the gun clauses of all 50 state constitutions, but I bet someone has extracted them).
There are only a few groups I reject out of hand -- the "me first" group that doesn't care what happens to the rest of society; and the extremists either way. Some of their arguments are just goofy, like the idea that outlawing certain weapons will make no difference because of the black market. That argues against not just gun control, but every single criminal law! What they really mean, I suppose, is that taking guns from law-abiding people will make problems worse, and perhaps they're right. Proof?
I don't see why we can't come to a reasonable accomodation with most people, but the aforementioned groups will never be happy. I think it's terrific the poster has even asked. We have the power to adjust the balance, but how? Like most people, I am concerned over the level of violence in the U.S. What to do about it, well, that's a topic for conversation once we all agree on the propriety and relevance of gun control.
Try this link for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. A bunch of data from the FBI and law enforcement from around the country with a break down by crime, by firearm type, and lots more. Also check the FBI's annual Crime in the US report (I think that's what it's called). Hard to get more official numbers than the BJS. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
If you want to reduce gun deaths: with a "sin tax" of a few thousand per bullet, this way there is no 2ndA violation, since the right to keep and bear is not infringed.
I first heard the idea from Chris Rock, he pointed out that if it cost $5k per bullet, then folks not only be sure that they really wanted to kill someone before shooting, but it would greatly reduce drive by violence.
$5000 does seem a bit much, but I think the idea has merit, one could use the $ raised for training programs in gun safety and gun violence victim compensation.
While doctors have been proposing this in a small way, I'd say we need to go much higher than 5 cents to see gun death prevention.
Tangos?
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
One periodical that regularly runs articles about this issue is Playboy. Yes, it really does have articles and some people actually read them. Playboy's editorial stance is more libertarian than liberal, though it does tend to come down somewhat on the side of gun control. Still, the magazine is a more open forum of debate than most. Unfortunately, none of the magazine's articles are available online. Still, the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature would probably help you find the articles on this subject.
!!gniluam UNG a fo DRAEH neve REVEN ev'I dna ,SSO evol I .tuoba gniklat era elpoep uoy tawh wonk t'nod I
What's this Submit thingy do?
Canada certainly has much more of a monolithic culture than does America.
You got it wrong on the first sentence. Canada is the mosaic, not a melting pot. I take it that you have never been to Toronto which is probably the most diverse city on the planet?
I think much of what America terms as "problems" are simply the costs of having a truly heterogenous society
LOL! Exactly when did the US suddenly transform into a heterogeneous society? I must have blinked and not noticed it happen!
Columnist Michael Medved makes the claim that if you isolate the gun crime among people like Canadians (i.e., whites), the numbers even out quite a bit.
The question was looking for an unbiased analysis. Read the article, and this Medved guy is extremely biased in his assessment of the movie and gun control. He does not refute any arguments about the Canada vs US difference in crime and gun control BTW. He merely uses the review as a vehicle for his own personal views and opinions
Move along people. Nothing to see here...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Well, as soon as I saw this topic I had to wonder what the hell it was doing on slashdot. But as I read over some of the comments I started to realize that this is also an issue of freedom, much as opposition to the DMCA is, or opposition to Carnivore is.
.
But this also really made me think about the responsibility I had as a member of this community with 5 moderator points. I could of course have used them to moderate any opinion I have disagreed with straight down to troll level, or I could use them to bolster anyone who was of the same mind as I am. I opted for a third path, and tried to find the most insightful and interesting posts I could. I managed to mark one up as +1 insightful, and then added a +1 funny to a comment about the 3rd amendment. Then I started looking at some of the comments that had been marked as trolls, and it would seem that some people really are moderating opinions they don't happen to agree with.
So I made the decision to post this instead, which of course will void my moderations, but I can live with that.
But does this really show a flaw in the system? Should we maybe just remove the -1 moderations? Or at least change things so that a post cannot be modded below 0? If we really are worried about people trolling, why is it that we can't simply just all change our thresholds to 1, and then we won't see anything that shows up posted by Anonymous Cowards, unless it is actually an insightful or interesting or funny comment. Moderators of course can still be encouraged to view at a 0 threshold. I am sure that others can come up with a better solution than this, but there has to be a way to remove the ability of one person to almost completely remove a comment they don't happen to agree with from the discussion.
That all being said, one of the views I have not really seen expressed, and this will primarily only apply to those livening in the US, is that as Thomas Jefferson once said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect against tyranny in government."
If I was at home I could simply open a file I have and include a great many other quotes to the same effects, from many of the ones who were involved in creating out constitution. Unfortunately I am at a job, and so it is unavailable. But one link that I remembered off the top of my head is Militia of Montana
With the recent passage of both the PATRIOT act, and the homeland security bill, we are continuing to surrender more and more of our rights to the government. Will we ever have to take up arms against the state? I hope not, I would prefer that most of America wake up and start to realize that freedom is not an abstract concept that can be bartered for safety. But just in case that never happens, and just in case the state does become a threat to my and every other Americans freedom, I would hope that we have not lost our right to bear arms. Since when it comes right down to it, asking an oppressor to stop nicely very rarely works.
Justin Fitzsimons
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
thats right once again, ontario is all of canada. You must be an american posting this.
This basically means that if you want a gun you are limited to single load rifles unless you can prove that you really need something else, mainly professional shooters, although a lot of their weapons must be stored at a gun club in their big safes. This system is great and although yes there are some unfortunate incidences of violence in which the perpetrator used a gun they are quite low and this is a Good Thing IMHO.
Please note I didn't say gun-related violence as a gun only increases the damage someone can do when they become violent it does not dictate their choice to become a violent person.
Although this may seem crazy to you Americans even though you have the right to bear arms why do u all need to semi/full automatic weapons. I can understand the need for maybe a 9mm pistol for home defence or perhaps a single load rifle for target practice/hunting. But anything else is overkill and this whole we want guns it's in the constitution is ridiculous.
There is a massive difference between restricting what guns you can get and whether or not you can get any guns and it is barely a slippery slope. Wouldn't you feel a lot safer if you knew that it was harder for any want to be crack head to pick up a full-automatic weapon. Don't you think you would be better off if less and less people had access to the more powerful guns.
I agree it is impossible to stop someone getting any gun if they have the resources but if you make it hard enough there will be less available and eventually all the existing guns will be thrown in the river or retrieved by the police.
I think America's biggest problem is that there is a large number of Americans that think they should have guns and that it shouldn't be some little sissy .202(the old old 1902 rifle style, I haven't used one in a while so this could be the wrong type) single load hunting rifle but army issue AK-47, or whatever it is that they use these days.
Just because your forefathers were all gun toting revolutionaries that built the USA from nothing to its greatness today, doesn't mean you all have to be ready to do it again.
--
nich
37 - what does it stand for really...
A large fundamental problem with attempting to capture the effect of an increase in gun ownership to crime rates is the data available on guns. I read through the posts quickly, since it's finals week so I may have missed similar responses, but I saw a few mentions of Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, which I recall generating lots of fanfare when it came out a few years ago. I am not entirely sure how Lott got his measurements on actual gun ownership, since it is not readily available or accurate, and whether or not he attempted to separate handguns (involved in more crimes) from other types of firearms. An economist, Mark Duggan, has a working paper called "More Guns, More Crime" where he uses a proxy variable of subscriptions to Guns N Ammo magazine to represent increases in gun ownership, and since Guns N Ammo mainly showcases handguns, it seems like a good proxy. He spends some time showing results from FBI reports and General Health Statistics reports to show that increases in the magazine subscription have a direct relationship in increases in gun accidents that usually stem from increases in gun sales. I know it's a bold assumption to make, but if you can get ahold of the paper (sorry I only have a hard copy), you can see that he makes a strong argument that an increase in guns leads to an increase in crime. Unlike a lot of pay for results studies, and since he's an economist, he includes several potential limiting factors and insight into why this may not be 100 percent correct, such as when measuring increases in gun ownership, it is very hard to capture the exact timing of purchase as to did the crime occur and then the purchase for defensive reasons, or did the purchase precede the crime. The paper is definitely worth a read.
But wait, here it is from a slightly better news source (and when USA Today is better than your news source, you need to get a new one):
3,685 incidents? In the entire country? And that's all gun incidents, of which only the tiniest fraction are actual murders?
US cops can only dream of the day we see as few as 3,685 gun incidents in a year (or hell, even 10 times that number.)
Insignificant sample sizes, and if I recall correctly, the numbers went back down again after the three year period was up.
-
United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation
-
International Homicide and Suicide Rates
A quick summary: Non-suicide gun-related deaths...- are not proportional to the percentage of households that legally own handguns.
- are proportional to the overall crime rate
In my opinion, it means that gun laws don't solve gun crimes, but whatever means address overall crime (education, equality, whatever) do work.Rock's most infamous bit--the one that resurrected his struggling career--came in his "Bring the Pain" tour in 1996. Rock dissected what he termed an ongoing "civil war" within the African American community, between the "niggas" and the "black people." The niggas, from Rock's perspective, cause dance clubs to shut down, fire bullets at movie screens, avoid reading for pleasure, rely upon welfare checks, and derive pride from never having been incarcerated. The black people, meanwhile, are defined only negatively: they are the ones who are not niggas. Rock concludes his discourse on this new civil war by saying, "I loveblack people, but I hateniggas, brother. Oh, I hate niggas. I wish they'd let me join the Ku Klux Klan."
When guns are outlawed, only criminals have guns.
Removing guns from lawful, responsible people does nothing to keep them out of the hands of actual criminals. By definition, being criminals, they will not surrender the firearms in their posession. So they they have them, and no one else does.
Classic fallacy. I don't agree with the following, but can demonstrate its fallacy. Here's what you do.
1. Ban the importation or manufacture of firearms except for those used by police and army.
2. Make private gun ownership a felony. Have a 1 year amnesty. Destroy any guns found in private hands. Pay people a bonus for turning their weapons in.
3. Shoot anyone who's armed and not wearing a uniform.
Either gun ownership is ineffective, or this would work. Which will it be?
The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in.
Yeah, that works real well. How come buglary is so common, then? And how come houses that have guns are so often targeted? (Answer: to get illegal guns. You see, most illegal guns start out as legal guns. That's how they get from the factories to someplace the criminals can steal them.)
Writing as a Canadian, I'm a little concerned about your characterization of my country as monolithic.
I didn't mean to imply that Canada is monolithic, simply more monolithic. Certainly there is a mixture/mosaic of cultures there as here, but simply as a matter of population, there is more racial diversity in America. This is a matter of statistics, and certainly doesn't make one better than the other.
For better or worse, most Canadian guns are long guns used primarily for hunting and sport shooting.
True. This is what you would expect if I'm correct.
If there was a gun in the house, she'd probably be dead right now.
What is certainly true is that she was left exactly as badly hurt as he had intended. He did not need a gun to kill her. What a gun certainly would have done is evened the score. In any event, I'm not willing to cut my losses without guns and just say "well, she may get the shit kicked out of her every few months, but at least she's alive".
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
2 people died because of a guy in a car shooting people as they drove by.
You think this justifies you carrying a gun.
A few questions:
You having a gun would have helped if you were in one of those cars how?
Do you play the lottery? Do you have any idea how small the odds are that someone will try to kill you with a gun?
Do you know how LARGE the odds are that the guy shooting those people stole his gun from someone just like you who has it legally?
--
I live in a city where ~60 people were murdered last year with a population of over 3 million (isn't it sad that we already know I'm not American). I have NEVER considered owning one. Most people who lvie here feel as I do according to polls. True, I come from a country that doesn't have a history of being scared all the time (Indians, Blacks and Terrorists oh-my), but we have very rational gun laws. It's called Canada, you should move up here with your family - you will be a lot more happy and free. Not free in the right to carry a gun sense, but free in the sense that you don't feel the need to.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
when you need it, you need it NOW!
I carry a concealed firearm.
And yes, it is a pain in the ass. And yes, you always have to be aware that you are carrying a weapon. And yes, you just can't 'cut loose' and party and drink like every one in your group.
But I firmly believe that at some point in my life, I WILL need this weapon.
And I am willing to go through all the annoyance and responsiblity of carrying a weapon so I will have it at that time.
and yes, I do hope that I never have to use it.
ask yourself this: "Do pencils cause misspelled words?" apply the answer to the above question to answer the next question "Do guns cause crime?"
42
I think gun control is the wrong issue. The main reason why guns are justified is for self-defense, right? Please exclude sport, that's an easily solvable situation.
However guns are offensive weapons, not offensive. It's like using an axe to open a can.
In my view the real question is this one: what can effectively protect your life while not endangering other's? Find such a replacement and we'll be in a better position to discuss gun control. Unfortunately the best one I've seen so far is in Star Trek: a phaser that only has a "stun" setting. Does this mean there is no hope?
We as a nation need to decide what is important to us and enforce it. The basic concept of inalienable is that it is not transferrable...you can't give it up if you want to.
.40 caliber hand gun for home defense which has never been fired except at the range. I am not a member of the NRA but I do think they have a right to exist and argue their points just like the opposition (I do believe though the laws they get passed are largely unconstitutional and should be abolished). I ocassionally (once every 2-5 years) hunt dove as they are tastey but I have to borrow a shotgun to do so. I don't hunt duck or deer or anything else but mainly it's because I don't like to eat it (actually some deer is good but it's such a small portion of the backstrap and I don't like sitting in the cold weather waiting for the idiot animal to find me)...I do support other's rights to do so however.
That's obviously not practical because even if you have the right and you can't give it up it can be oppressed by public consent. If we think it's okay for Washington to determine when we enforce the Bill of Rights and for which groups then we're on the right path but if we really believe in the founding principals of this nation it's time to enforce all of our guaranteed rights for all peoples uniformly reguardless of if we agree with the people the rights are being enforced for.
Just like Nazis should be able to march in public places due to the first ammendment protection people who use guns for defense and or sport shouldn't be opressed by those who disagree with them.
The biggest problem in this country is a lack of the Rule of Law. We need to enforce laws blindly and evenly we need to send politicians and CEOs to jail when they do something wrong and we need to not look at skin color, religion, or anything else other than the facts of the case. Until this happens we won't have full fledged rights being enforced for anyone, no matter what their station in life is. I believe that all 10 ammendments in the bill of rights and most of the others after it were excellent (#10 is a bit shifty but you had politicians back then, too, and the concept they're trying to enforce is good but the ammendment is a bit too much of a power grab) ideas. Now we just need to make them a reality.
The second biggest problem is we have a culture where no one is held accountable for their actions. Don't get me wrong many of the things we blame for are failings are legit but if you believe that humans have freewill they are factors not causes and it's time we see that. A man may have predilictions for many things but it's still his choice each time he follows them.
Just so you know my biases...I am a single white (German, Scottish, English, et. al. crossbreed) American male. I am a protestant Christian and I make between $70K and $100K anually so I'm pretty much upper-middle class. I own a single
Asking for a short in a dwarf bar. Being in the shade. Asking a Troll if he's got rocks in his head. It's very easy to commit suicide in Ank-Morpork.
Or something like that.
> willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
Good point, now assume that guns are simular to video cammera's. They mostly displace crime.
(who in their right mind would rob a defended house over a comprable un-defended house.)
Do you want to be in a country where criminals can cross boarders, and be the country in the middle without Guns?
Well done. Keep up the good work.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Statistics are only of use in as much as they are
applied by principles. For a given set of facts, you
can easily arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions
if your deduction is based on conflicting principles.
I hold that the most fundamental human right is
the right to exist, and the right to self-defense
follows directly from that right. But I wouldn't
derive from that a right to bear small arms unless
said arms were the most apposite means of
self-defense, a question which can only be decided
according to circumstances. The same argument
applies to "weapons of mass destruction".
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
That is an ignorant statement.
If there were no guns a substitute would simply be found, like a knife. If you want to stop crime you have to try to focus on something that can be influenced in the equation, the person.
What if you take everything away from a man. He could still kill you with his bare hands.
If you REALLY believe gun control is good, then why not post a sign on your yard:
ATTENTION
THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE
NO GUNS ALLOWED IN THIS HOUSE
Make a statement.
Take a stand.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Find several reputable peer-reviewed journals in the social sciences or public policy
Find a university library, sit at a terminal, and do a search on these journals. Use key words like "gun control" "crime" etc.
Read the relevant articles your search has produced
Maybe there is a faculty member or graduate student interested in assisting with this. Good solid research papers may come to completely opposite conclsions, simply because the context and assumptions of their research differ. An academic experienced in interpreting these may help. Be sure to find someone without an ax to grind on either side
You are correct in being sceptical of those who have an axe to grind. There are some fairly obvious fallacies invoked in partisan research, a good text on statistics may help. For example, one is inferring from a correlation in aggregate data that another correlation must exist at the individual level.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
People post trolls in response to the article!
BTW, if you're going to quote statistics, it's a good idea to refer to some actual statistics.
:wq
Answer: It's false. You're more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the UK today than in the US. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. "Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States." Check it out.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Aside from my cousin's Daisy air rifle from when i was a kid, I haven't ever fired a gun. I personally don't understand the facination some people have with guns, but then again, I don't understand some people's facination with knitting. So, now that I've put myself into the "not a gun freak" category, let me make an observation.
The nazis were able to roll across and conquer Poland in 1939, and pretty much the rest of Europe the next spring. They did this with next to no resistance among the people who lived there (that is, in comparison with the blitz). What guns were held by private citizens in the expanded Lebensraum were collected, and not without bias. It would have been next to impossible to find a Jew in the posession of a firearm in the months before the Holocaust began.
Europe's private citizens not being able to defend themselves led to the deaths of something like thirty million people.
If this were all about numbers, I would claim that domestic gun violence is a fair price to pay for preventing events such another holocaust.
Like I said, I'm not a gun freak. But I have read a history book or two.
Myth One: More Guns, Less Crime.
o c
John Lott, an economist at Yale University, used an econometric model to argue that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths.
Lott estimated that each one percent increase in gun ownership in a population causes a 3.3% decrease in homicide rates. Lott and his co-author, David Mustard released the first version of their study on the Internet in 1997, and tens of thousands of people downloaded it. It was the subject of policy forums, newspaper columns, and often quite sophisticated debates on the World Wide Web. The debate followed predictable ideological lines, with one prominent critic denouncing the study as methodologically flawed before she had even received a copy. In a book with the catchy title More Guns, Less Crime, Lott taunted his critics, accusing them of putting ideology ahead of science.
Lott's work is an example of statistical one-upmanship. He has more data and a more complex analysis than anyone else studying the topic. He demands that anyone who wants to challenge his arguments become immersed in a very complex statistical argument, based on a data set that is so large that it cannot even be manipulated with the desktop computers most social scientists use. He is glad to share his data with any researcher who wants to use it, but most social scientists have tired of this game. How much time should researchers spend replicating and criticizing studies using methods that have repeatedly failed? Most gun control researchers simply brushed off Lott and Mustard's claims and went on with their work. Two highly respected criminal justice researchers, Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins (1997: 57) wrote an article explaining that:
just as Messrs. Lott and Mustard can, with one model of the determinants of homicide, produce statistical residuals suggesting that 'shall issue' laws reduce homicide, we expect that a determined econometrician can produce a treatment of the same historical periods with different models and opposite effects. Econometric modeling is a double-edged sword in its capacity to facilitate statistical findings to warm the hearts of true believers of any stripe.
Zimring and Hawkins were right. Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared. Black and Nagin found that when Florida was removed from the sample there was no detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the rate of murder and rape.
They concluded that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy."
- http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/econojunk.d
Unbiased opinion is not possible on this subject. I will give my opinion on the matter. First, go ahead. Take the guns. May I remind you the folks who commit murders do not usually lawfully own the guns in the first place. They are obtained from that bald guy on the corner or that hayseed looking guy in the back ally or the gangster in a business suit from the back of a cadillac. They can even be stolen from their last victim. They don't go to the local gun shows and they don't go to Vance's Gun Shop. They don't get background checks and they certainly don't practice gun safety. Just reminds me they had the gun control thing on the halloween special on the simpsons. Funny as hell but true! The criminals are not going to turn their guns in no matter how much you give them. Every citizen has a right enumerated in the constitution. As far as I am concerned, every gun law that is made is against the consitution and the only way they can get rid of guns is if there is and amendment and that will never happen. Guns are there. Deal with it.
Gorkman
For your statistics, I suggest you look at the statistics published by the extremes on both sides of the debate. Look at the standard deviation on those stats...when the standard deviation of a stat published by gun-rights activists overlaps with that of one published by gun-control supporters, consider that stat as valid. Otherwise, discard it. If you can find a neutral source, that would also be useful.
Really, all the stats in the world are irrelevant to this particular problem (unless we want to change the 2nd Amendment). The 2nd Amendment says "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." The meaning of this is clear: it means tthat the right of the people to keep/bear arms shouldn't be disturbed by the gov't. The parenthetical preamble part regarding a well-regulated militia is just a built-in justification for the Amendment: it means the same thing with or without that part. It would be like a commander telling a soldier "don't do X, because of Y"...irrelevant of Y, the command is clear: don't do X. Btw, the USSC has recently accepted this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
So its very clear what the 2nd Amendment says. It does not mandate that people be in a well-regulated militia in order to have the right to bear arms; if that's what the founding father's wanted, they could have worded it that way.
Now, the question becomes "what exactly is an arm". Is a military grade Vulcan cannon (which is equipped on fighter jets) an "arm"? What about napalm cannons, or rocket launchers? Even Uzis and AK-47s? Well, that's a rather unfortunate vaguity. When exactly does something change from being an arm to being a military weapon that shouldn't be available to the general public, such as (for example) an atomic bomb? The founding father's did not have to face this question: there was no gap in the technology between the military and the civillians back then. Thus, we can not look back to the constitution to determine this question.
Another interestin question regards ammunition. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of ammunitions. Currently, bullets cost less than a buck to buy: that means your allowing someone to kill 10, 15 people for about the cost of a McDonald's happy meal. If bullets were taxed as cigarattes are taxed, alot of these random shooting sprays might be prevented.
I suggest making a modification to the 2nd Amendment, and modifying it to "the right to self-defense and the right to hunt" which would deal with these questions. Hunting rifles would still be fine, but sniper rifles wouldn't: you do not need a sniper rifle to kill a deer. Nor do you need a fully automatic pistil to defend yourself. If a semi-automatic hand-gun and several bullets aren't enough for you to defend yourself or whoever you're defending, then you're pretty much fucked anyways.
If you don't like what the 2nd Amendment says, then lobby to have it re-written/modified. Don't try to take the cheap easy road and twist its words to suit your particular goals. This is a typical pattern among interest groups when something in the Constitution or the Amendments bothers them: rather than trying to have the Amendment or claused changed by another Amendment, they try to twist the meaning of the words. This is rather disturbing to me.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I too, saw Bowling for Columbine, and it's taken a while to formulate an opinion on it, just because there's so much there. It's an incredibly thought provoking movie, but I'll try to get some thoughts down here.
Unless and until the government surrenders its right to firearms, I feel that its citizenry should not have to do so either. I define equality as "mutual surrender", meaning that two parties both submit to the authority of the other, rather than one to the hand of a dominant other.
If I had to surrender to my government, but it did not have to surrender to me, I would consider that an unequal relationship. After all, the government is composed of individuals, and to allow some people with that right but not others would create a huge balance of power away from the citizens in the hands of the government. In so far as guns bring power and people respect the power that they bring, it should not be concentrated in the hands of a few to wield this over the many.
An interesting scene in "Bowling for Columbine" occurred when Michael Moore asked the friend of Timothy McVeigh if people had the right to own their own missles, or something to that effect. He replied that they did not, citing "many weirdos out there".
Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you're familiar with Bill Joy's Wired article, that's exactly where society is going. Either you stop certain technology or at least heavily regulate it (basically requiring the regulation of education and the flow of information as well), or the destructive capability that new technologies will bring will be akin to giving every one the right to own their own nuke.
My personal opinion, is that the most likely way to regulate the violence in the future is in the realm of personal responsibility. Given the way most people behave today, it's not the most comforting thought to think that our best hope is to expect a huge shift in personal responsibility, but I still think it's more realistic than trying to slow technology or limit who has access to certain technology/information in the first place, especially since even the most trusted person on paper could suddenly shift course unexpectedly. As modern terrorist acts show, even threatening people with their own destruction does not suffice as a good form of prevention, and as such, accountability must become separated from our conception of responsibility.
So, even if not at the point now, we will soon pass a threshold where a government bearing massive arms serves as more of a liability than a potential source of security. Then, for all of our sake, we better hope that all people get in much better touch with their own conscience and would never think of killing anyone under any circumstance.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing
evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate... Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding
deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You've got a good point. And I wish you were right; I really do. Every time I see one of these "stories" posted on the front page, boasting a couple hundred responses, I get my hopes up about the insightful replies I'll see reading at +3.
...Yes, partly, the problem is the clichéd complaint: too many lamers posting and moderating. But really, the problem has much more to do with the "First Post!" mentality that has become the nature of the site.
Read through this thread for yourself. This is what usually happens. 80% disappointing.
The problem with a thread like this is the very nature of Slashdot.
How often have you seen a discussion on Slashdot continue to acquire a significant number of responses, say, three hours after it's been posted? And how often have you seen any real moderation done to a thread, say, 90 minutes after it's been posted?
Slashdot happens too damn quickly. Too many participants really do sit in front of their computers all day clicking "Refresh." In this thread, the submitter appealed to the community to offer reasoned arguments, and objective facts. Certainly, many Slashdot readers are capable of doing this. But for most, it would involve a bit of thought and research. And so they don't bother -- because they know that, by the time they come back in 20 minutes with some hard numbers, their post will be buried under a couple of hundred garbage postings, and it's unlikely that any moderator will take the trouble to boost their signal above the noise. (And most of that "garbage/noise," of course, has already been modded up to 4's and 5's by lamebrained moderators, anyway.)
It's unfortunate. There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot. But the volume of participants, coupled with the obsession with immediacy, effectively prevents Slashdot from ever hosting a real in-depth conversation about any topic which doesn't appeal to the firsthand expertise of the community. If you want some insightful opinions about Linux, you'll strike gold at Slashdot. But for any other topic, this is the wrong place to expect engaging conversation -- the intellects of the participants notwithstanding.
crib
Please don't read my journal
That is one of the most devastatingly spot-on comebacks I have ever read on Slashdot. Don't expect to see anybody address it. :)
The simple fact that these men were the Founding Fathers does not automatically make their beliefs and their customs desirable, moral, or worth of imitation. What they wanted us to imitate, they put forth in the United States Constitution and other official pieces of American jurisprudence. Pieces of jurisprudence that are famous for not mentioning gods, Jesii, etc.
Just cnahged some words...WHAT IS WRONG?
I, for one, and a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. And that means I think the government shouldn't be able to stop me from speaking, stop me from gathering in a peaceful manner, stop me from going to church, or stop me from owning DRUGS for my own GOOD. I carry DRUGS every day, in fact. It's MY responsibility for my and my family's GOOD, not the police deparment. I take that responsibility seriously, and in this "land of the free", nobody should be able to take that right of self-DETERMINATION away. The founding fathers saw those as "God-given" (sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal).
Correlation does not imply causation. This is one of the most important rules in stastics, science and so on. I can find correlations everywhere, including many that show correlation between more guns and less violent crime. However it is not relivant unless CAUSATION can be shown, and that is much, much harder to do.
In 1998 per capita gun ownership was :
.25 guns per every Canadian (only 1 in 4 Canadians owns a gun)
.82 guns per every American (overwhelming majority of Americans own a gun)
In 1998 per capita homicide rates per 100,000:
4.3 Canadians killed
11.4 Americans killed
This is taken from http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm I found through google. Yes it's pro gun control but the references are there if anyone wants to go to the library and check the stats.
This person asked for facts not people's lame opinions backed up hearsay.
Another thing to note is that there's a yearly event where kids ages 13 and up can shoot those asualt rifles (6 shots) and win prizes. I'm pretty sure that they record all good shooters for when it's time to do military service (yes, it's mandated.)
25% of American housholds have guns, that's 192,000,000 guns floating around. These guns kill 31,000 Americans a year, and anyone trying to ban guns would be attacked from all sides (Rifle club has over 4.1 million members). Yet, when a kid got inujured with a Super Soaker, their town banned them... Go work out the logic!
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
Actually, they are ammendments, which means initially no one thought them necessary. They are not carefully ordered and palnned, they are just a collection of things that some people thought about afterwards. The second is the only ammendment that states a motive for its existence, which means it's not a "god given" right as the others, but just a practical consideration, for the security of the state, not the individual's.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
If not, you are reaping the benefits of allowing guns in the hands of lawful citizens. The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in. You may not own one, but no one knows that but you.
A few years ago, some people tried this up in Portland. Needless to say, the signs came down rather quickly after all of their homes were broken into and burglarized.
Personally, I've always fancied the idea of putting a "this house is gun free!" sign in my lawn, then waiting up at night with my rifle. Of course, I can't do that because the would-be criminals have more rights than I do.
The flow of events:
(1) I put up the "gun free" sign. A legal exercise of free speech.
(2) I wait for someone to break into my house and enter it.
(3) I shoot him/her. (Legal if they are breaking into my house.
(4) I go to prison for committing two legal acts, that are, in combination, bad.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Slashdot readers are smart people. I would recommend people interesting in this topic read:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws
(Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
by John R., Jr. Lott.
After reading the book and his background I feel he did a fair study.
Any study of a society where gun control is in place may reveal, or not, interresting facts about that society without any possible correlation to the effect that similar legislation might have on some other society.
An example is Canada, indeed, where violent crime is very low and death by firearms is even lower despite the relatively high number of per capita guns. Yet the reason whu there are so much guns around is that historically, people up here have been hunting a great deal more than our neighbors to the south. My family owns over a dozen firearms of various calibers, but all of them are hunting weapons. Buying a gun for defensive purposes here is highly controled; and you need to demonstrate a reasonable need for it to go through the red tape.
In the US, one will find gun ownership is more closely tied to the desire to protect oneself or one's property. You may find that the number of firearms per capita is significantly lower than Canada's, say, but the number of handguns per capita is much, much higher.
(People rarely buy a 12 gauge shotgun for defensive purposes, after all).
The effect of firearms control legislation is entirely dependent on sociopolitical factors; and the only way you could reliably know what effect such would have on the US, is to enact them and watch.
There is truth to be found in either extreme. It is true that criminals will not care if they break some minor gun control law in order to commit violent crimes. Conversely, it is also likely that reducing the number of handguns is going to reduce the number of opportunity and spontaneous violent crimes.
But any such legislation will have a profound effect on a society which feels (however obsolete the concept) that owning a firearm is a right.
-- MG
Before I start, I'd like to state that I own guns and enjoy hunting, and have lived up north in Canada where a gun is needed for both safety and survival. But, it distresses me to see that American media has so hugely distorted this issue on both sides that common sense doesn't seem to be prevailing in the posts I've seen so far.
It's simple. Substitute the word for "Gun" with the word "car".
1) Yes, the right to own a car/gun is important, you need it to work/eat/for protection.
2) No, Not everyone should be able to drive/own
a gun/car
3) Yes, because guns/cars cause so many deaths and crimes they should be able to be quickly tracked by police. Both need securing in the case of theft, and to protect children.
4) Just like cars - there should be tests and training to ensure that the car/gun owner is competant with their car/weapon. And penalties to remove the priviledge for those who are poor drivers/careless gun owners.
5) Yes, some of the points above inhibit your freedoms - it's the required price you pay for being part of a society.
6) The issue is not gun control but Gun Responsibility.
As to some of the posts on statistics,
Well,
Sweden ---> Gun responsiblity is GOVT Enforced, mandatory training, HOUSEHOLD INSPECTIONS, etc. This is never mentioned by those who reference the low gun crime rate.
Canada ---> Stricter gun controls, less crime across the board
When I need an objective opinion Slashdot is not exactly my first choice....hell just look at the first several pages of comments.
Look at the NRA. Do you think everyone in the NRA went to the library, carefully and thoughtfully evaluated the statistics, then reluctantly decided to support gun ownership because the facts supported it? No! They decided to support gun ownership because they love guns. Facts, if any, were found afterward to reinforce the position they already had regardless of them.
I'd wager that most NRA members don't "love" guns any more than you "love" your screwdriver or your car, or your favorite network analysis tool. It's a tool for accomplishing a task, and one that they strongly believe they have a right to use in a responsible way. If used carelessly or maliciously they can cause harm, like any other tool.
Yes, there are exceptions. Just as there are folks on the other side who passionately hate firearms, no matter how they're used. Folks on the extremes cannot be reasoned with, but when given the choice between restricting someone's actions or not, "not" is generally the right choice.
If you accept that defense of your own home is your personal responsibility, then you'll also have to accept an increased risk of accidental shootings as well. By accidental, I mean shootings carried out in the heat of passion and shootings where the gun is taken away from you by the robber in addition to shootings due to physical accidents. Think about it. Which is more difficult? Training 300 million people in the safe and effective use of lethal force and hoping none of them ever get angry, or training 100 thousand professional policemen who practice with weapons on a regular basis? It's pretty clear that on a macro level, the first scenario will generate many more undesired shootings than the second.
as Michael Moore pointed out in 'Bowling for Columbine' Canada has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate compared to the US and has nowhere near the amount of violent crime that the US has.
He did not say that. If you paid careful attention to the numbers, he said 7,000,000 guns in canada (per 30,000,000 people) and about one gun per person in the states.
My biggest gripe with that film is that he threw numbers around, and unless you were quick at contextualizing them by dividing by population, you were left with a skewed impression of reality.
Undoubtedly this correction will be lost in the noise, and Moore's misrepresentation will live on. Oh well.
-Rob
-Rob Ewaschuk
I live in New Zealand. We have a very strict set of gun controls. In general our society (well at least the law-abiding-majority) does NOT have easy access to firearms. In fact, my current firearms license (which lasts 10 years) "allows" me to own only rifles. In fact I need a license to purchase a rifle or even any ammunition.r ms-code .pdf
If I wish to own a pistol, I must join and attend a pistol club for a time, then apply with references from the club. This would then require me to purchase further more strict containment facilities for any pistol I wish to purchase. The police would come around and inspect those facilities. Again, the same holds true for any MSSA (Military Style Semi Automatic), in fact I would have to prove that I am interested in being a collector, not just a user!
If you wish to review the NZ Firearms Code it can be downloaded from here.
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2000/a
It all sounds very strict and bordering on a police state. However, more importantly than that it comes down to the fact that the general society takes the use and ownership of firearms very seriously. They are not considered a means of "asserting one's views", "protecting one's rights". This of course is a side affect of our history, being a nation founded from the days of the ever expanding British Empire, and NOT having asserted the right of independence. We are a constitutional monarchy. Yes have firearms related incidents, but they are not very common, and usually they are used as a threat.
My 5c worth, is that introducing strict gun control measures is not an immediate solution to the firearms problems in any society that has these problems. In my opinion it comes down to educating people in appropriate uses, ownership reasons and reducing the criminal elements access to them.
Basically anybody should have access to them, I don't have a problem with that, however, the question society should ask is, does this person warrant having this firearm for legitimate reason and is this person responsible enough to own one?
Of course all of this breaks down once the criminal element enter the scene.
Here is your second amendment:
"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."
It says nothing about guns.
Something closer to home for some /.ers.
Several posters have highlighted the usefullness of a gun for self defence, both against other citizens and the government. This is the key element behind the Second Amendment, right?
Well, in a world where the communications infrastructure is almost as important (or maybe more so), surely 'weapons' or 'tools' that can be used to hack (and protect yourself from hacking) are just as valid for self defence?
Who cares if you own a gun if the government/other large organisation can destroy your identity through fraud or a simple mistake. Don't we need software tools to defend ourselves too?
Guess you wanted to get the anti-gun "let's tell everyone else how to live their lives" freaks all riled up. Talk about pushing hot buttons.
For the uninformed and the just plain deluded, here's some statistics from National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001. These are *facts*, unlike what most people seem to be pulling out of their hairy asses:
In the United States, homocide ranked 15th in causes of death, down 6.5% in the last year (2000), a steady decline since 1991. Some numbers:
homocides - 16,137
septicemia - 31,613
influenza and pneumonia - 67,024
accidents - 93,592
You are more likely to die as a result of contracting a non-specific infection during a hospital stay than you are to be murdered, by any means.
You are more likely to die in a non-car-related accident (almost three times as likely, in fact) than you are to be murdered, by any means. This includes falls, drownings, accidental poisonings, and so forth.
You are four times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia than you are of being murdered, by any means. Note that the statistics for flu and pneumonia are separate from those concerning HIV-related deaths by pneumonia and infectious disease. HIV isn't to blame for these flu deaths.
If someone does try to murder you, there's a fair chance they'll use what's known as a 'weapon of opportunity', e.g., the handiest blunt object or sharp instrument. You are much more likely to die by blunt object or sharp instrument than by gun unless you're a) a criminal, or b) a black male living in certain particularly dangerous urban areas.
Accidental gun deaths accounted for 808 people in 2000. In comparison:
falls - 12,604, mostly down stairs or from ladders
drowning - 3,343, primarily in back yard pools or recreational areas.
poisoning - 9,803
Clearly, accidental gun deaths aren't nearly as common as falling, drowning or poisoning. If folks are so concerned about accidental deaths they should first concentrate on more primary offenders like stairs, ladders, and swimming pools, not to mention general stupidity (e.g., accidental poisoning).
Since 1930, the number of annual fatal firearms accidents has decreased 56% while the number of privately owned guns has quadrupled and the U.S.
population has doubled. This information has been independently confirmed by the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Safety Council, the Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
According to the FBI the biggest purchaser of firearms during the last decade has been women, mostly under the age of 40. This makes sense given that this women of this age group are the most likely people to be victimized by a crime, especially a violent one.
For the male dick-measurers in the crowd, you might consider the impact of banning firearms completely with respect to the safety of women. Very few women can match an average man in a physical confrontation and win; the gun completely eliminates the size and strength advantage that a man has. At worst both the man and woman will have a gun - and then at least they'll be on equal ground. Ban the gun and men are once again the winners of any physical contest, in a country where we *know* we can't protect women from violent crime. But I suppose the mysogynistic bastards among you will rejoice at the thought that you can beat your wives and girlfriends without fear of getting your ass shot, as you deserve.
According to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 violent crimes were prevented last year because the victim was armed. A 'violent crime' is defined as a rape, robbery, or murder. More than 60% of these victims were women who were carrying a concealed weapon illegally, which is why the statistics range so much (they don't report because they'll be arrested if they do). That's a minimum of 200,000 crimes that otherwise would've occurred had the victim not been armed. The firearm was actually discharged in less than 1/10 of 1% of these cases. And please note: the FBI isn't known for it's fondness of the 2nd Amendment.
Of course, I know none of this will mean anything to the anti-gun nuts. They're so piss-scared of everything around them that they'll say and do just about anything to make sure their neighbors aren't armed. Cowards. These are the kind of folks who'd rather see a women raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a firearm.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I understand the argument that there will never be a real world situation where there are no guns. It won't happen. I would like it to but introducing crap legislation to try and get there will have littly to no effect on criminals in any way.
I also understand that the majority of violence related to firearms is not masacare style. Its not one guy going crazy and unloading his clip into the unwashed masses, those were just meant to show the maximum damage the average person could ever do to in a crowded area.
However how many situations will you be in where someone pulls a gun on you and you have the opportunity to pull your weapon out of it's holster and shoot the perpertrator before he drops you dead.
Of course there will be situations where someone breaks into your house and you can scare them off, however outside of Hollywood and those rare World's Stupidest Criminals where the guy puts the shotgun down on the table and the clerk grabs it off him, in the real world if someone already has a gun pointed at you then you are either dead or he wants something. If he wants something from you pulling out your own gun is only going to guarntee he/she shoots you, no questions asked. Yes you might get lucky and they miss you, it has been know to happen but arguing for guns on these grounds is ludicrous as you are endangering your life and potentially the life of anyone near you if you draw your weapon.
As for the inability to get rid of weapons, this is very true. However what if you make it harder in the future for these same people to get another gun. If they want it enough yes they will get it. However maybe next time the crack head will rob you with a machette, a much easier to defend against weapon. For starters you can just run like hell. The andrenalin will pump and you wont stop till you reach Canada. Sure its not the best answer but it is an improvement.
Yes I recognize that guns get reused, and that people can make their own, but making a gun is not exactly trivial especially when you are after something complicated like a full automatic weapon.
My main point is that restricting guns is good, yes people should probably be able to access firearms and responsible people should be able to own them. However what type of guns should be heavily limited by both calibre, size (as in hand gun v rifle) and firing mechanism (as in semi/full auto v single load/hand guns you have to manually load (I am unfamiliar with handguns and I am referring to the ones you need to pull the slide back each time you fire a bullet)
Finally I suggest you put a big sign outside your house reading
Shoot to kill zone
and see what kind of reaction you get. (I know I am being feceitious but hey what the hell)
--
nich
37 - what does it stand for really...
That is an ignorant statement.
:)
...
;-)
Ever tried arguing without considering the other side as "ignorant"? Usually works much better
If there were no guns a substitute would simply be found, like a knife. If you want to stop crime you have to try to focus on something that can be influenced in the equation, the person.
I'm not saying that there's no education to do... but face it, education has its limit and you'll still have a low percentage of the population that you won't change no matter what. Also, sure some people will turn to knives, but even knives are still less dangerous for a number of reasons: wounds are less likely to be lethal, also you can't stab at a distance,
The other thing I don't understand is that necessity to own a gun. I've heard many "I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns". Now, what if there are no guns? Suddenly, you don't need a gun to protect yourself.
What if you take everything away from a man. He could still kill you with his bare hands.
Sure, there are tons of armed robberies done with bare hands
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
The problem you get if you allow people to wear guns is that if you are for example robbed by someone that has a gun and you tries to use your weapon the robber is suddenly forced to use his gun to survive. And he has already his gun ready and are probably faster to use it than you are...
If you let people own guns it will get more easily to get a gun by stealing it from someone nad you get more illegal weapons on the market.
here very few poeple has guns, but it does exist but very rarely someone that uses guns.
How many people in the US dies by murder? How many of these get shot?
who shot the cat in the hat to experiment is insane
Lets step away from "facts","spin" and "special intrests" and listen to one Texan's opinion.
I live in Texas. In this state, we've voted in a concealed hangun law. It is leagal for a non-felony criminal to carry a handgun provided he/she obtains the proper permits and passes the training classes.
I like that I have the choice to carry. I choose to not carry.
I think that most issues in America should be decided by individual states. This includes abortion, gun control, and the death penalty.
We could avoid spin, and special interests if we had the states decide themselves.
Todd
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong
The Founding Dads didn't give a hoot about hunting deer, or stopping muggers. These guys were a bunch of fire-eyed revolutionaries who had just won a war against their own government, in part because everyone had an "assault rifle" in his house.
To quote the Big J: The impression I get is that they wanted to preserve for their children the same deal they got -- you don't like the gov't, and are sufficiently motivated, and all your friends agree; revolve! Er, revolute! Well, you get the point.
The part about the 'well-regulated militia' makes me wonder if they'd intended this to be one or more states fighting against the federal gov't (doh). But the documentary evidence seems to support the idea that stopping street crime has very little to do with the 2nd amendment.
Neither the Brady crowd or the NRA crowd seem willing to say these things aloud. I want to see this argued in front of the Supremes: right up front, does the 2nd Amendment forbid all gun control laws or not? Does the 2nd actually require ("well-regulated militia") all gun-owners to register their guns and themselves? Stop tap-dancing around the issue!
I saw one other post which indirectly asked the following questions and it got no responses and only modded to 2. But I really want to know:
Why is this on slashdot? What relevance does this have to geeks besides ESR liking guns? Yes, it has been a busy topic but there are a lot of topics which would get a lot of comments but that doesn't mean they belong here.
Finding unbiased information is just as difficult as drawing unbiased conclusions from it.
You might find some data about this issue, but to understand it, you have to understand how the nation being subject works. That is why adopting practices blindly from other countries often fails.
There is nothing wrong in owning a gun or even to like guns. Something is wrong in a bad way, if people feel that they have to carry guns for safety. Situation is really scary if their fears for their safety are real.
Would you put a sign in your front yard that says that this house is full of $1000s in guns? Burglers usually try to avoid breaking into houses when there is someone present as to limit the chances of someone calling the police. If guns are present and people aren't, they just steal the guns.
or any of that FUD. Think about it: the idea is to reduce the amount of gun deaths by making more expensive to fire your weapon.
If you have to make your own bullets, this accomplishes the same goal: it's alot harder to make your own clip of 7.62x51mm ammo than it is to buy it, so either way you have a great reduction in the number of folks willing to empty a clip to make a point. Of course it wouldn't affect musket owners much at all, and heck hunting with a muzzle loader is alot more sporting.
Would it make a difference? Well, even the 5 cent tax would raise millions for emergency rooms. Of course the much higher tax I'm proposing would greatly reduce ammo sales, but it would hardly "erode civil rights", cheap ammo not being one of those.
As for "our ability to raise against them", you are talking dangerous fantasy talk, you can't "raise against" the US Army with hand weapons, the Taliban tried that with alot more than modified Ar-15s, remember?
If it ever comes to that, you'd be alot better off excercising your right to "keep and bear" bouquets of flowers than modified Ar-15s...
Americans are UnAmerican!!
If you help the Americans, then the terrorists have already won!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
But I can't--with any of those objects you mentioned--blow someone's head off, instantly, from 10 meters away, just by flexing my index finger.
If any gun is found to be used in a crime, the owner of that gun should be insured against all illegal damage, injury or death caused to other parties by use of that weapon by the owner or any other person.
This would encourage owners to keep their guns safe, and ensure irresponsible owners can't afford guns.
The price of illegally owned guns would increase as this would help to deter gun theft from US citizens.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
m ?p er_id=16317
3 6. html
ISBN: 0226493644
Is based on empirical data gathered from the FBI crime stats, the states, and other sources. It is footnoted to all hell for further research.
While the NRA and gun lovers tout this book as gold anti-gun groups argue there's more to the issue.
The key point is that I have never seen anything in this book refuted. Argued, yes. Claims that Lott skewed the numbers, yes. Refuted, never.
A good read in any case (if you can deal with all the stats, graphs, charts, and other data)
Another interesting point is that John R. Lott Jr. is a senior research scholar at the School of Law at Yale University. He was previously a law and economics fellow at the School of Law at the University of Chicago.
Some links to dowloadable docs can be found here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cf
Other links to Lott info:
http://www.aei.org/scholars/lott.htm
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/4936
Canada may have a higher per capita gun ownership, but I think you'll find the number of hand guns is a lot lower. Also the laws are stricter on assualt rifles and automatic weapons. In essence Canadians may have more guns per capita, but they tend to be locked up out of reach most of the time, unlike the US where I would expect more concelead weapons per captia. So if a Canadian looses it, he/she has to go home, unlock the gun and then use at best a semi-automatic. In the US you can just reach in your pocket pull out your Uzzi and just spray away. At least that's the impression to those of us living outside the US.
Anybody have stats on the number of hand guns per capita in the US vs Canada? How about access laws and type of weapons allowed?
It's not just gun owernship that results in crime but access to those guns and the type of weapons available.
Taffy In Oz
Well I've got some karma points to burn on this fine Monday, so tell me this....is this nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for a troll? I mean, there have got to be better ways of finding info than "Ask /." (well not if you're dumb).
But yes, congrats. This is the first real troll I've seen on the frontpage for awhile.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Please remember that our nation started as a handful of colonies with little in the way of regular militia to defend their towns and farms. It was mandatory to carry firearms in several colonies prior to the Revolution. The Bacon rebellion in response to indentured servitude of whites (read: slavery) firmly set much of that region into pro-firearms stances. Indeed, preserving liberty and property remains a core tenant of why owning firearms in the rural areas of our country away from police enforecement should be permitted with minimal regulation. Oddly enough, I think the first gun control laws came from Kentucky and concerned prohibition of concealed weaponry of certain types. Gun control since then has evolved into bizarre attempts that even include the banning of all handguns in some towns. These laws usually do not reduce crime in any significant way. Criminals are defined as those who break the law, thus criminals will have firearms regardless of what laws are passed. Law-abiding citizens are the only ones who will heed the lawsm but if enough feel unsafe they can agitate for serious legislation favoring security even if it violates privacy and freedom. Recent events shoulddisplay part of the latter point. Many of the people claimed under "gun homicides" are in fact suicides, self-homicide. This leaves a minority of all murders as being committed with firearms, and many of those are by police officers, people defending their homes, or genuine murders. There is no reason why certain weapons should be available to the public at large, such as fully automatic AK-47s or M-16s. Perhaps special licenses should be available for owners who wish to acquire more powerful weapons. Our nation already has more guns than people, banning the guns to solve crime would be like curing alcoholism with Prohibition. Please look up more on google.com or dogpile.com, especially since this issue proves divisive and little truly objective information is available.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Sure, there are tons of armed robberies done with bare hands ;-)
Okay, how about twenty big, angry men with pipes? Remember, no one has guns. Hey, I bet the twenty big, angry men with pipes could take over the whole country! Cool!
(And one day, they'll create a board with a nail through it so big... it will destroy them all!!!)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
On several occasions I have heard reference to statistics for violent crimes comitted in Australia with handguns. Ownership by private citizens was outlawed there sometime during the 90's. The year after violent crimes comitted with handguns increased dramatically (something like twice the number of violent crimes of the year before comitted with handguns). Sorry, I don't know where you would find this statistics information for Australia. I would think that the lawmakers there behind this move would not want it's failure widely puplisized so the internet would probably be the best place to find the information. I have read references to these statistics on Pro 2cd Amendment web pages but never from the source. By the way, what is the point of outlawing ownership guns by law-abiding citizens in an open society, especially one in which criminals don't seem to have any difficulty acquiring guns illegitimatly? I would propose that it has to do with power and control of government more than the safety of it's citizens. (The one exception is violent demestic disputes which do occur among previously law-abiding citizens... however, they tend to use whatever is handy, gun or no.)
I grew up in Southern Indiana. I also have a Personal Protection permit which means I can carry concealed weapons in that state.
I too, did some research on this and I agree that the numbers do get manipulated quite a bit for either side.
However, look what happened in Australia when they jerked all firearms.
Take a look at the violent crime rates in Sweden (where every male must serve in their militia and at the time I had read about it, each house hold must keep a loaded firearm for protection purposes in their homes.)
Instead of going for statistics and whatnot, let's just look at common sense. If you're a crook, would you break into a home KNOWING damn good and well there is someone in there with a loaded firearm that knows how to use it?
My belief here is simple. I think to even OWN a firearm, you must pass an NRA or equivilent gun safety course. BUT once you own that gun, you should be able to take it ANYWHERE you want.
Making laws to keep criminals from having and using guns is friggin stupid. Criminals OBVIOUSLY don't care about laws, or they wouldn't be criminals now would they?
yes, you should be held responsible if someone steals your gun and kills someone, unless you have if locked up in a safe, with the ammo in a separate safe. guns are VERY different from cars or planes, or almost anything else.. the ONLY point of a gun is to kill (or play duckhunt). you have to be more responsible when you buy a gun than you do with a car. yes, a car can kill someone, but the purpose of a car is not to kill. you could kill someone with an old spoon if you want. you have to look at prupose and intent.
Oh boy, a Bot-Mitzvah... Shalom hunger, Shalom free food...
I believe (yes MY belief not fact or substantiated) that "guns" represent a type of technology that man has created over many years. This technology is similar to many other types of technology in that it can be used for "good" and for "evil". It seems to me that people who stand for "gun control" really stand for "the elimination of guns" (I'm making a REAL leap here in the interests of getting to the point). If I follow this logic through, it also seems to me that "gun control" advocates are people who believe that a society can "unlearn technology". In other words, they believe that if we simply BAN the technology, evil minded people will not learn how to produce their own guns, and will simply lay down and say "OH, ok, guns are BANNED and ILLEGAL!! I better not create a "Zip" gun (created from a piece of pipe, black powder and projectiles) for the robbery that I am about to commit!" I just don't believe that this is true. I do NOT believe that society can "unlearn" how to build thigns (barring a MASSIVE disruption in human communication - one that I am egotistical to think would not be likely today). This is similar to the "ban nukes" way of thinking. The REAL problem with this type of thought is, that once the "technology genie" is out of the bottle, it is OUT people... we can not put it back in again (we can not "unlearn" the technology). It is in attempting to "Stick our heads in the ground" or "pretend the technology does not exist" or attempting to "unlearn" the technology that we possition ourselfs to be taken advantage of by individuals or countries that do NOT share our peaceful intent. Here is where we need to allow guns to exist - I believe that vigilance is the price of living with our modern technology.
:)
FLAME ON
You are not asking because you are interested. You are asking because you want us to do your homework for you. Why do I think this is your homework assignment and not just a question? Well, there are 3 reasons.
1. You want "unbiased opinions". These are impossible to find in the real world, yet we are always asked to provide them by the establishment.
2. Your statement about the Canadian gun ownership has a misplaced 'but'. 'But' should only be used in that statement if your two statements aren't related or are conflicting. This means you have already made up your mind, but you want to make it look like you haven't. You are asking for someone to tell you that more guns = less crime.
3. Asking for "references". Nobody needs these for an exercise of the mind. The only people who need references are those that will be taking note of the references.
You, sir, are writing a paper by asking Slashdot to do the work for you. Judging by the high quality of answers that are available on Slashdot, I hope you get your paper completed solely based on the views presented here. It would do you some good to learn why using 'ask slashdot' to do your homework is a bad idea.
so there.
If what you mean is that 17 should not be under the age of consent, then maybe you have a point. However, if a 17 year old is a "minor", then your gang-banger is just as innocent as the 10-year-old's sister.
Most people with guns can't either. Have you ever been to a public pistol range? Most people couldn't hit something the size of a head 10 feet away much less 10 meters.
Regardless of wether it takes 1.5kg of pressure from your trigger finger or a full arm swing from a club YOU still have to decide to initiate the action.
I haven't read any of the other replys but I just want to say right here and now that canada has 1/1,000th of the murders each year and they have very similar gun control laws. It's not the laws its the culture.
"I feel it is my duty to look at the porn that kids download before I delete it, to be sure what it is."--School Admin
I used to be very much against private ownership of
firearms. Then I started taking a look at the evidence and changed my mind. Here are a few of the
most useful authors I encountered:
1) Gary Kleck - self described left-leasning liberal
criminologist:
Point Blank - Guns and Violence in America
Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control
2) Don Kates - lawyer, civil rights activist
The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms & Violence
Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control
3) John Lott - U. Chicago economist
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
4) Joyce Lee Malcolm
Guns and Violence: The English Experience
5) David Kopel
The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies
As I say, this left-wing anti-gunner ended up
changing his mind as a result of reading this
sort of stuff. I still think that the Republicans
are the Devil and Bill Clinton's policies were
those of moderate Republican of 40 years ago, but
I have to admit the Right is right once in a
while. This is one of those whiles.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
"I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns"
I need a gun to protect myself from people with knives.
Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
I'd really like to see some stats on just how many oridnary people have used a gun as a defensive weapon (like to stop a rape, buglary etc).
I've heard (sorry, no source) that shootings by the Police can get lumped into these statistics too. Be wary when you see numbers about total handgun deaths and are shocked.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
You make a number of assumptions that the weapons are properly stored, and that the owner is a mature, responsible, well-balanced person without any violent tendencies. Even then, guns can be stolen. The presence of guns in a house may pose a significant risk to the inhabitants of that household though. Most women who are murdered by their spouse are killed by guns. Another unfortunate side effect you ignore is the threat guns in the house pose to children. Some statistics from the American Acandemy of Pediatrics suggest that:
* In 1997 there were 32,436 firearm-related deaths, of which 4,223 of the victims were children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age.
* Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the United States.
* In 1997, 85 percent of all homicides and 63 percent of all suicides for adolescents 15 through 19 years of age were committed with a firearm.
* The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries. The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.
* In 1994, the mean medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, with the 134,445 gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 producing $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion (49 percent) was paid by US taxpayers.
* 1997, 306 children and adolescents younger than 20 years killed by firearms died as a result of unintentional firearm-related injuries.
* 10 children die each day from gunfire in America, approximately one every 2 1/2 hours. That is the equivalent of a classroom of children every two days.
* In 1998, nearly three times as many children under 10 died from gunfire as the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
So, how about some facts to back up your rhetoric?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Let the flamewars begin. Why did the editors post this shit?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
From "Stranger In A Strange Land"...
Make each firing of a gun unique and traceable to the person who fired the weapon. Do this for the most popular hand-guns used in crimes. Create a single/multiple (few though) shot "self-defender" pistol that brands the shooter and immediately calls the police and gives them the location (GPS). Technologically all of these are possible and all could be implemented "relatively" easily. Reduces crime - who wants to rob someone then have the cops called immediately and then be able to identify them and link them to the shooting? Solves self-defense issues. Solves right to carry arms. Solves sales issues for gun manufactures. Handles a large percentage of crimes - though obviously not all. The percentage could be adjusted by law and effective practive of turn-in programs.
Just a regurgitated thought.
Maybe you want W=Fd?
He said "remove one of the ingredients." He didn't say which one. :)
Even if you made guns totaly illegal for any person except law enforcement that would not stop the criminals. In Washington DC it is illegal to have a gun, now think for a second of some of the bad areas of nearly any city, DC is no different. I lived in DC for awhile and when driving by some of these sections it was not uncommon to hear gunfire, semiauto and fullauto at times. The problem is with laws they usually only hurt the good people. This is no different with guns. I am personally a gun owner and though not radical belong to the NRA for the same reason as the author (need to for matches). Criminals will break the law anyways, do not punish all people and prevent them from owning weapons.
Just like it says on his website, Michael Moore is looking for attention. He creates controversy and makes absurd statements to get just about every rational person leaping from their skins for attention. On Slashdot that kind of person is usually called a Troll, but since his influence reaches beyond these hallowed pages, and he actually believes much of what he says, he's nothing but an extremist crackpot who has no business even being mentioned in a serious objective discussion.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Guns don't kill people. The government does.
First, research related to guns has taken on an almost totally political tenor. As a recent example, a book that alleged to offer facts relating to low gun-ownership in the time of the founding fathers has been shown to be at best unreliable, at worst a calculated fraud. (Michale Bellesiles
resigned from Emory University over the flap.) The widespread acceptance and adulation at the book at its first appearance did reveal the polticial and uncritical nature of the book review community with respect to this issue.
This would indicate that absent visiting original records, you would have a hard time determining what the basic records reflect. This creates almost insuperable problems in the highly politicized environment. [Consider: the Maryland/Virginia sniper shootings laid out a case to increase gun control over small-caliber (.22 cal./5.56mm), single-shot (only one shot per episode despite the semi-automatic capability of the actual weapon), long (not easily hidden) guns. The result: agitation for more control over the "safest" class of weapons results.]
If the Supreme Court did find an individual rights to self-protection/hunting weapons, wherein gun owners knew that some level of gun ownership was protected by more than the politics of the moment, rabid resistance to any gun control as necessarily leading to a total gun ban might disappear. We won't get that any time soon. Anyway, that would just politicize Supreme Court nominations even more.
In short, unless you want to become a historian in this area, and spend your time examining original records, there probably is not much that you can implicitly trust. Anyone publishing data has an agenda, and it has been pretty much proven that the data can and will be warped to political ends. It is quite sad when that happens -- science is no longer possible, just politics, and the worst kind of politics at that, pure, blind, unbridled ignorance vs. pure, blind, unbridled ignorance.
Have you ever heard of the "Complaint Generator"? I suspect this is a derivative work.
Un-news
I don't consider my neighborhood to be dangerous, but that didn't stop the loser from breaking in and attempting to swipe my stuff. The experience taught me a life lesson - I'm the only one who will defend me (and my wife and my child) from the bad guys. The cops showed up 20 minutes too late, and filled-out paperwork.
Had I been home at the time, I don't think I would've quesitoned the intruder as to his motives. "Excuse me, do you plan on just taking stuff, or shall I prepare for an injury?"
In such an instance, I expect to create a large hole in the intruder's chest cavity. Several, if necessary. In the heat of the moment, there won't be time to consider that this individual's motives. This is one situation where you, as a responsible individual, need to pre-decide your course of action. Expect there to be consequences: both emotional and societal. You can spend many sleepless nights evaluating the merits of either course of action - I have.
This is part of responsible gun ownership. For that matter, it's responsible whether you own a gun or a sharp stick.
I wonder if anyone has compared Canadian statistics to those of the USA. It seems to me that Americans are awash in gun toting criminals compared to Canada. Now is this because guns are strictly controlled in Canada or for some other unseen reason? Comments anyone?
Yeah. Shame we couldn't mark the whole thread as "flamebait", instead of just the articles :-) Some of us believe strongly in self-protection as a basic human right, others believe strongly in the opposite, some people are seriously confused about whether guns give you more or less ability to protect yourself, and you can *forget* the Europeans (:-), who seem to believe that an armed government can run a polite society, or the Americans, who don't believe in polite societies.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The right to own a firearm was put into the founding documents of the US in a time when rifling had just been invented and loading 1 shot into a gun took at least 30 seconds, if not more. It's hard to imagine something like Columbine with a weapon like that. Perhaps the founding fathers would have had different ideas if they knew where "firearms" were going.
First off to the main question posed in the article, all research based on firearms is flawed down to its base. This is simply because all research done in this field is based off of observational studies. Observational studies are one of the worst possible scenarios for any kind of research because there is no control over lurking variables (there are hundreds in this case that I won't get into). So in essence, any group or person (Handgun Control Inc., NRA) can generally use any study to prove exactly what they want. However, if you are still looking for good, unbiased research you might want to look into the early research done by John Lott of the University of Chicago (i think thats where he's from). I have read some of the posts here, and I have read many other discussions over this very topic. It seems that people either believe that firearms are bad because they kill people, or they are good because they save people from being killed. I have yet to hear from any person the third possible view that I possess. It is an undeniable fact that firearms do occasionally kill people. Argue all you want about this fact, if you don't believe me, just go to the USA's Latest Census statistics. It is also an undeniable fact that firearms do protect their owners from danger when they are correctly applied. Thirdly, it cannot be denied that the human race has grossly overpopulated the planet to a point that can no longer be sustained indefinitely under the current conditions. Having said all of this, i now suggest that WHILE FIREARMS DO KILL PEOPLE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY ASSISTING IN THE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN POPULATION WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION OR PERSON RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHO LIVES OR DIES. You can call me whatever you want to call me for suggesting this idea, as long as you recognise firearm deaths as a means of population control. Every other living thing on planet earth has numerous population regulation factors effecting it. One of the most common regulation factors in especially large predators is aggression. A population is not allowed to get too big because its own aggression towards other members of its own species keeps it from overpopulating. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what I am proposing. I am saying that firearms kill people, and will continue killing people because of our increased population. This will continue at an increased rate (most likely with a strong correlation to our population growth and population). While i have given you a highly condensed form of my idea, you get the picture. Alpha-S Alphasniper762@hotmail.com
This report is from the Australian government. As reliable a source as you will find on the 'net, I think.
Perhaps this is not conclusive proof, but it's enough evidence for the Australian government to propose an extension to ban most types of hand guns.
<opinion>I don't really see what the discussion is about. There is no need for automatic weapons or hand guns in the hands of civilians in modern society. The only place where firearms are warranted is in the hands of farmers (for destroying livestock), miltiary and law enforcement.</opinion>
http://www.reason.com they usually have some good articles looking at both viewpoints. But you have to look for them.
Later
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Gun ownership requires that the user be rational and controlled. Based on some of the posts here (my eralier ones included), I would say that this is nearly impossible for most Americans. The ideal way that a gun should be used (only as a last resort after ALL other options for self-defense have been exhausted.) is well-nigh impossible for any human being to do. The very fact that most gun owners consider themselves well trained, is just as frightening as the idiots on the road in SUV's who think everyone else is a bad driver.
Un-news
Yeah, but it's really hard to kill yourself by accident with a club. :)
I often see my posts moderated even a day or two after a post. Sure the bulk of replies happen at the start, but some interesting onces trickle in later and I do see those get moderated.
/.
As for the quality of posts - even if 80% are dissapointing, even if 95% of the posts were dissapointing, where else would you even get 5% out of a thousand posts that hold any value in an open discussion forum? Usenet? Hell, where else woudl you even *get* 1000 posts of any quality!!!
Just from reading the many threads here, there are some interesting ideas - like violence occuring more between cultures and thus they have less n Canada which is more homoginous (sp?). Or to watch bowling for columbine, which I already knew... and other peoples viewpoints and ideas on gun control.
I've seen a lot of reasonable and interesting responses, so I fro one am pretty happy the person took the chance at rasing such a touchy issue on
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Its our god given right to have the means to protect ourselves. Period. No further discussion is needed.
Its not *MY* fault there are idiots that do wrong things, and i *refuse* to be judged by their actions.
Looters use bricks to break windows and beat peoples heads in.. does that mean we need to discuss banning bricks? No of course not. This whole discussion is just as ludicrous.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/Default. htm
1. Look outside the United States for data.
2. Remember: correlation does not imply causation
2. Remember: correlation does not imply causation
Shouldn't that be "excrete"?
Un-news
Thought this was good, so I repost it for the bloke who wrote it...
... can you?
... that's a different matter altogether.
.
... disarm.
;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think statements like this just perpetuate the gun mentality of (some) Americans. "I know other people have guns, so I better get one to protect myself." Rinse, repeat.
It is not a matter of other people having guns, so I want one too. It is a matter of not being able to trust the people around me. That goes for citizens as well as the gov't. (Think "Redcoats")
I don't have stats about kids accidently killing themselves with guns they find in their parent's closet, but I'm sure it happens. A lot. I can guarantee it will never happen in my house
Yes I can. Gun is unloaded, locked in cabinet. Only one key, on my keychain. Ammo is also locked, somewhere else. Generally locked box inside of a safe. Only one person knows combo of safe, location of key (not on keychain), as well as location of safe itself ("Protection" is not why I own a gun)
I guess the other argument would be to not throw anything, don't piss him off, and let him take what he wants. Sure, you lose your stuff and maybe get roughed up a bit (but probably not if you don't give him reason to). But you live. And hopefully he'll get caught by the authorities later.
Assuming they are not crazy, holding a gun, have the shakes due to lack of heroin etc etc. In other words, I get shot.
Driving a car is a priveledge, which you earn by taking lessons and passing tests. A gun is something an American feels is their right (2nd amend.), and you can probably pick one up for a $100 at the nearest sporting goods store. That's why.
Owning a gun is also a privelage. Guns are licensed, background checks are becoming the norm, and if you are a convicted felon, it is not legal to buy one. For most types of guns, it is harder to obtain one than it is to get that Ford Excursion in all it's 12mpg glory.
As for lunatic in airplanes
Truth. It is also leading to the erosion of our rights as citizens. There is only one word to be said for all of your rights to be violated, with the approval of the general public. TERRORIST
How long ago did that revolution end? You afraid Britain might invade again? So why do you need your guns now? You've got your freedom
Can you show me where this guarantee is that says we will continue to be free? Whether it is outside, or inside, influence? Please?
The guns-as-historical-right is a crock. Why aren't you arguing for the right of everyone to keep a catapault, or longbow or sharp pointy stick?
Catapult etc, because they haven't tried to take them away, yet!
Until your neighbour gets a bigger gun. Rinse, repeat.
It's not bigger that is the problem, it's faster that scares me!
Actually, I hate guns because people like you feel you *need* to have one to protect you.
Entirely valid.
I grew up hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycling, playing sports etc etc. Often, I am referred to as a hick. Yet some of the stories I have (13 yrs old, Thanksgiving, and a live turkey that is to be dinner, for one) are absolutely hilarious, even to my pro-gun control friends. When people hear that I used to shoot skeet competitively, they are interested as to why.
Every person has their own opinion. Every person is partly right. As tey are partly wrong. People do lots of things for the right, or wrong, reasons. It just so happens that gun ownership is a hot topic right now.
Please note one thing, the annual rate of death by cancer (just those attributable to smoking cigs), and automobile accidents, is far higher than death by gun violence.
The real question in my mind is; if a guy is drunk, drives his car into another car killing a family, he goes to jail for 5 or 10 years, maybe. If he did the same thing, drunk, but with a gun (killing a family), he would be in jail for life, or facing the death penalty. Why is that?
see book by MIT professor Lott - "More Guns Less Crime: understanding gun control and crime" -
an indepth analysis of 10 years worth of
police statistics
>> Police carry to prevent crime, namely injury to themselves as they try to enforce the law. So, the lawful armed citizen is a Good Thing. Laws disarm only the lawful.
Yes, and they are considered a "last resort" the idea is that if all other means fail than they can be used.
I don't know how they handle that in the US but to my knowledge if an officer fires his gun in Germany there is an inquiry and they try to determine if drawing and shooting the gun was warranted.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
(only as a last resort after ALL other options for self-defense have been exhausted.)
Are you saying that if someone is coming after me with a knife I should use some other method to stop him instead of a gun. Maybe I would only get stabbed once before stopping him.
Uh, the Swiss are more religious about their guns than pretty much any other nation. The BBC has the story.
(Note the stunning lack of gun crime in Switzerland.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I don't own a gun nor has ever used one. Never had the need. I am a law abiding citizen that respect everyone else and has come to use strong words and my fists as my defenses in many dangerous situations.
With that said, I respect the fact that other people feel the need to own a gun since our past fearful experiences trigger that determination. I just wish that when owning a gun becomes a necessity to me it is still an option. There is nothing that pisses me off more than seeing teenagers awe at the feel of a crappy 0.22, whishing there was a squirrel then can shoot just because they can...uhmm! This is just like the kiddie hackers that do a DOS just because they can. Although their actions do not carry the same repercutions or media attention due to the lack of blood spills, the same underlined attitude is present: I have the power in my hands, therefore I use it.
Excuse me if I overgeneralized, and yes, there are grown men that behave worst that teenagers. Those immature sacks of shit are the ones that drive our insurance premiums high for driving while under the influence. Those are the same irresponsible assholes who don't have the will to control their drug use (I have met plenty of responsible pot heads) and keep feeding this war on drugs that is just becoming a money pit of our taxpayer dollars. The list goes on and on. Give the power to a dim wit and we will all pay.
And now, the guns. I will repeat this at the expense of sounding like a troll: Guns don't kill people. Stupid poeple kill people. And we all pay for it.
Not all guns are equal. Both the exteme pro- and anti- camps like to lump "guns" into a single category. For example, the NRA likes to point out how often guns are used in defending one's home--how often are AK-47s used to defend one's home? The anti-gun lobby likes to talk about all the "gun violence"--but how often is a hunting rifle used in a crime? Any realistic study has to look at the type of gun and will end up treating some guns as worse than others. And you won't get that from either extreme group.
gun control != news for nerds
that ownership of guns vs Gun control is a heavier trafficed than is the Johansen trial (1188 comments vs 170). The trial is more likely to have a bigger impact on the world (even the USA) than another set of "I'm right and you're a moron" debates.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm from Northern Ireland and we have an interesting slant on gun laws. If you allowed people to freely have firearms there would be a guaranteed civil war. The fact you have to be connected to get the guns stops the majority of crimes (rather go to the pub than have all that hassle). The fact is that if you can't trust your citizens to be responsible, banning guns is the only option.
Also in Britain we have enough bills to pay, without having to fork out for a firearm, thank you. If the Americans used the money they wasted on firearms to create more youth clubs and the like in dodgy areas, maybe less kids would get into gun crime.
Also, why why why, do Americans always try to reduce the liberties of other countries, whilst extend their own. Take Iraq for example, surely under 'American Logic' if every country had nuclear weapons, nobody would fire them?
Here's an interesting perspective on British gun control by Glenn Reynolds (Instpundit.com)
85% of Americans think this signature sucks
You should consider reading a paper by Dezhbakhsh and Rubin published in the American Economic Review in 1998 (N.B. The AER is about the best journal you can find in economics so their research is peer-reviewed by the best). They find that Lott's work (already referenced in this forum) is severly flawed.
The work by Mark Duggan published in the Journal of Political Economy in 2000 (another top-flight journal) finds that more guns equals more crime. This one has also been mentioned in this forum. My point about this one is that any study will have difficulty disentangling correlation and causality but they try to do it as well as they can. In the social sciences, because you can't run controlled experiments it is very difficult to get clean data. So, practically any research will have this problem. Nonetheless, they do it very well and you should read their work carefully. They are well aware of the problems of correlation and causality, which is why they use such a novel approach to control for it (magazine subscriptions).
In sum, definitive answers are not available but the weight of evidence among economists is leaning to the proposition that guns do indeed cause more crime and not vice versa.
here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm. The part toward the middle of the page that says:
Offenders
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
80% of guns used in crimes were obtained ILLEGALLY! What will be accomplished by banning or further restricting guns? Someone that wants a gun will get a gun. Drugs are illegal but no one would argue that they're not prevalent and easily obtainable in ANY city or town or any other part of North America (that's right, you Canucks have a problem too). So, what has been accomplished by criminalizing drugs?
Recreational Pharmaceuticals ["Drugs"] are not legal to import, export, own, possess, distribute, sell, buy, smoke, snort, inject, use, look at, touch, own, have, carry, transport, trade or in any other way shape or form [insert transitive or instransitive verb here]. Nobody would argue that the "good guys" are winning the "war on drugs". In fact... it's a disgrace. The only one who would argue that is an inmate so that point is moot.
Somehow though, the anti-gun zealots would have us all believe that if guns were illegal; If there were no "gun shows"; If it were illegal to own / possess a hand gun; If nobody had access to guns; If we criminalize any kind of gun ownership; We'd all be better off and live in a "safer" society where you couldn't get pistol-whipped in East L.A. by a gang member.
Isn't it obvious that all we have to do is outlaw guns?
Accidents aside (people get killed accidentally on ladders ) - Guns are not any more lethal or dangerous than any other item that would be used to commit a crime. If someone robs the 7/11 with a Louisville slugger and beats the clerk to death would you say that's "better" or "safer" than had the perpetrator used another item for a weapon - say a gun or a knife? The clerk's still dead and the perpetrator is still a murderer. How is it different? A homicide is a homicide is a homicide.
There is no cause-effect relationship between guns and crime. Guns do not commit crimes or cause them to be committed. By owning / possessing / handling a gun, one does not become predisposed to criminal activity - Just as owning a knife doesn't predispose someone to stabbing their neighbor. If that were true - we need to disarm law enforcement and the military right away! If I steal a credit card number by using a computer vs. me obtaining said credit card by picking someone's pocket the result is the same. I'm going to use it to buy a truckload of Bawls from thinkgeek.net. Either way, I'm stealing. I'm still guilty of forgery / fraud / theft. Take away the computer and I'll find another way to steal credit card numbers. Take away the guns and they'll find another way to rob banks / convenience stores / gas stations / commit rape / etc. etc.
As for the issue of accidents. Well, anyone can misuse just about anything found in an "average" household. When people don't use things responsibly - bad things can happen. When alcohol is abused or used irresponsibly, people could be killed operating a motor vehicle. Drunk people fall off ladders and sustain injury too. We call those people stupid or irresponsible and submit them for Darwin awards. There are countless digitless/limbless people in the world due to carelessness with a chainsaw. You wouldn't give your child any more access to a chainsaw or drain cleaner than you would your gun so why is this such an issue? Because of ignorance and irresponsiblity. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and pontificate on the "vile" nature and "evil" thing called the gun.
"Prohibition" didn't work in the 20's. The "war on drugs" isn't working now. Criminalizing guns won't work in the future. Criminals got the booze then. They get the drugs now. They'll get the guns tomorrow. The only people that suffer are law-abiding citizens that obey the rules in the first place and use the items responsibly for legitimate purposes.
Perhaps things would be different if every time someone committed a crime with a hammer it made the home page of cnn.com/usatoday.com. Perhaps people would feel differently about water if every time a child drowned it made headlines. After all, everyone knows that we should ignore the responsibility of the parent / guardian and placed the blame true criminal - the molecule H2O.
In parting, let me say that it should be obvious that I'm a proponent of responsiblity not criminalization. I believe that people are responsible for themselves and their actions regardless of the topic - guns, drugs, alcohol. Unfortunately, the topic of gun "control" has turned political. That's never a good turn. The quick way to turn an issue into a cloudy, un-solvable problem with mostly bad solutions is to politicize it.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott. It is published by the University of Chicago.
Amazon Link Here. It seems to be in stock as well.
"Some explanation is in order about this book.
"John Lott is an economist that works for the University of Chicago Law School. As most professors do, he assigned research projects on various topics to his students on which they would write and he would give them a grade. However, a few years ago when states were just starting to legislate "shall issue" concealed carry laws, he assigned the topic of what the effect of concealed carry laws were on crime.
"His students not long after came back with research papers that cited extremely poor studies -- on both sides of the argument. Most studies didn't take obvious other influences into account. For example, they didn't take stricter punishments that were often implemented at the same time that concealed carry laws went into effect. Other studies were obviously highly biased from the onset and other studies sample size was so small (only a county or two), that the study was statistically unreliable.
"Because of the poor work that was done on the subject, Lott embarked on a large scale research project of his own on the subject. As I recall, he ended up doing an analysis of 1,600 counties or so -- by far the largest ever undertaken.
"Lott makes all his research data available to anyone (including you) for the asking so that others may examine his work and see if there were any flaws in his research or improve upon his work. (Is this open source research?)
"In short, what was found is that in counties where there are concealed carry laws :
"1) Violent crime goes down by 10%.
"2) Violent crime against women goes down 15%
"3) Non-violent crime goes up. (I.e., the criminals take your car when you are not in it rather than when you are.)
"One thing that bears mentioning here is that this is Dr. Lott's expectations were exactly the opposite. He went into the study expecting that the more firearms there were, the more associated crime he would find. He wasn't pro-gun or anti-gun at the time though he did expect to find that there would be a direct correlation on guns and crime. It is a credit to Lott that he shifted his position based on his research in an age where research is so often used to bolster ones already formed opinions.
"I have to admit that one of my favorite sections of the book is chapter five where he talks about the arguments that have been used against his research. One story that I found particularly interesting is as follows:
"When his book was first released, he watched on television when one of the top people from one of the anti-gun groups spent quite a bit of time talking about the flaws in his research and how inaccurate it was. When he arrived home, there was a panicy message on his answering machine from the same lady saying that she really needed a copy of his study really quick. He called her and offered to send her a copy. In the course of things he asked if she hadn't already seen his study since she spent so much time on television refuting it. She promptly hung up and he never heard from her again.
"All in all, More Guns, Less Crime is an exemplary book. It is well written, well researched and is probably the most seminal book on the subject.
"Since the book was published, Lott has spent a fair amount of his time lecturing at various law schools on his research and testifying before congress.
-Art
'Interesting. Only white males and females in the guard are allowed to own guns because they are in the militia."
b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, any male and most likely any female since language in US Code that discriminates sexually automaticly doesn't discriminate sexually with the exception of Combat Roles in the USMC and Army, who is a part of the militia.
i.e.
Every adult Citizen is in the Militia and thus can own/possess a weapon.
If there was a list with roles, then it would be the Organized Militia, which is in section a. Section b. is everyone else.
I hate this argument. 1) Criminals are not a Java class, they don't have a "definition" that makes them choose to disobey all laws whenever possible. That's bullshit. 2) All criminals will not have guns. If they don't all have guns now, and they don't, then they won't magically recieve them once guns are banned. Some of them have and will have them, and it's out of scope to try to predict whether the proportion will increase or decrease 3) "no one else does" except law enforcement.
If guns were banned, then only some criminals and the police will have guns.
The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in.
This is one ot the few anti-gun control arguments I think makes some sense.
I don't have stats about kids accidently killing themselves with guns they find in their parent's closet, but I'm sure it happens. A lot.
.38 Special will kill someone just as dead as a .44 Magnum, a gatling gun or a howitzer. The primary point of a firearm is to act as a deterrent---to cause the assailant to think that there might be grave personal risk in the assault, and so call it off. I don't care how big your gun is, it's still a risk for you to assault me if I also have one.
Sorry, kiddo, but unless you back this up with some facts, it's pointless supposition, and as such, has absolutely no value.
I guess the other argument would be to not throw anything, don't piss him off, and let him take what he wants. [...] But you live. And hopefully he'll get caught by the authorities later.
Cool! Be a dear and tell this to every woman on my campus. I'm going to go serial-rapin' tonight! (Humor-impaired: I'm making a point. I'd prefer not to see cops at my door when I get back home tonight.)
The guns-as-historical-right is a crock. Why aren't you arguing for the right of everyone to keep a catapault, or longbow or sharp pointy stick?
Because no one is trying to take away those rights. Pretty obvious, eh?
Until your neighbour gets a bigger gun.
No, see, you're missing the point. Death comes one per customer. A
Unless you have an orbital laser platform. But in that case, I think it's a slightly different issue.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
i did a great deal of research into this many years ago for a school project. i dont recall when exactly, but it was around the time bill clinton was first elected, and the brady bill was a big deal.
i was able to find a great deal of material at the time- some of it unbiased, much of it not. it didn't matter really. if you read the opinions with a mind toward the authors bias, you can usually pick out the relevent facts and ignore the opinions.
the problem is that it's impossible to do a controlled study of the issue. there are too many implicit variables. there's no way to find two locations that are exactly the same except for their gun policies. prevailing social attitudes, demograpics, and a whole host of other factors all play into the situation.
the result is that there are reams and reams of studies and statistics out there that support both sides of the argument.
for example (this is all off the top of my head, and i may have mixed up some of the countries- my research was >6 years ago):
- switzerland has one of the most armed populaces in the worls. swiss citizens can buy and own military artillery. swiss violent crime levels are much lower than the us.
- canada has much stricter gun control than the us. gun crime is lower than the us, but overall violent crime is about the same- the decrease in gun related crime is roughly offset by an increase in beatings, knifings, etc.
- japan has very strict gun control and also very low violent crime rates compared to most other countries.
- another country i studied (australia or great britain possibly) had much stricter gun control laws than the us, but also a much higher rate of gun-related crimes.
i also remember a variety of comparisons of areas within the us. but in the end, none of the comparisons i found meant very much. they all deal with areas that are different in so many ways that it's hard to come to any sort of hard conclusion.
in the end, everyone out there does the same thing i did. they pick a bunch of statistics from a region that matches the view of the world that they'd like to portray, and ignore the rest. the great thing is that they dont even have to lie or make the statistics up. there's so many valid statistics out there that portray any possible view on this issue, why risk getting caught with invalid ones?
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
If you get out of the military's way. Politics prevented the full commitment of US forces in Somalia. Somalis did ok with small arms (only suffered 100 or so casualties for each of ours) because:
1) We pretty much only used small arms on them
2) Somalis were more than 100 times more willing to suffer casualties than Americans were.
What did Desert Storm, Kosovo and Afganistan all have in common that Somalia did not?
Air strikes.
It's pretty hard to win a war against an opponent who is willing so suffer huge casualty rates when your populace gets extremely pissy if you lose 20 soldiers or kill too many enemy civilians, or if your allies insist you operate within a horrendous maze of rules of engagement.
In modern times, a trained militia is close to worthless for any government function. Palestinians all have guns. The Isreali military still moves around the Palestinian territories at their own leasure, and palestinian leaders can only move around with Isreali permission. A lot of good guns do the Palestinians.
You know what *REALLY* scares the shit out of Isrealis? It's not palestinian guns, it's palestinian voting.
Guns don't protect your rights, votes do.
paintball
I'm a geek. I also despise gun violence, and I do not support the NRA (for several reasons).
As a geek though, I recognise the importance of the Bill of Rights (here in the US at least). It would be hypocritical of me to strongly oppose regulation and laws which limit free speech (the 1st amendment) while lobbying for limiting laws and regulation of guns (the 2nd amendment). I think the Bill of Rights should stand pure, and I support all the amendments as strongly as we support free speech.
That being said, I don't want to sound like some crazed gun-loving redneck. I am against the NRA, and I think they lobby for some horrible things.
For one, they are against any quality regulations for gun manufacturer. If I want to manufacturer Teddy Bears as childrens toys, those toys have to pass more government quality and safety tests than a new gun. It's wrong, and backwards - but true.
Also, the NRA is against banning so-called junk guns. Guns which are made of home-made parts and are designed only for close range killing of another human. They are very unreliable and inaccurate, giving them zero value in hunting, competition, or self defence. They are used only in crime - yet the NRA is strongly opposed to banning them. It's sick, but true.
While I am against the NRA, I do believe that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be any more limited or regulated than the 1st. Once the government sees that they can bend the amendments, it's only a matter of time before Free Speech goes down the toilet (even further than it already is).
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
In the state of Pennsylvania, our right to bear arms for both SELF-defense and the defense of the state "shall not be questioned", as per our state constitution. Naturally, there are some reasonable limits to this clause as enacted by our legislature.
Felons cannot own firearms. You have to go through a (nearly) instant background check to see if you have a criminal record prior to purchasing a firearm. If the instant check comes back "criminal", well, a friendly state cop or deputy sheriff will be in the room with you shortly.
Assuming you have a clean criminal history, $19 will get you a license to carry a concealed firearm. I've had mine for nearly two years now..my carry pistol has never jumped out to bite anyone. The responsibility I accept while carrying greatly limits my ability to party; the pistol gets locked up on my designated party nights.
The stigma attached to guns amuses me as much as the stigma attached to drugs, or 'Open Source Software.'
My life is mine to defend. Noone else is obligated to protect me, and I wouldn't ask them to be. Nor can I afford a professional bodyguard. Police? Love 'em, most of the ones I know are great guys..but they have no legal obligation to protect me as an individual, nor am I obligated to beg Mr. Rapist/Mugger/Batterer for my life until the police arrive.
I hope that I never have to hurt another person in my life. It's not my desire, nor is it my intent.
I will do whatever is necessary to protect my life from unwarranted aggression, however, up to and including the use of lethal force.
I hope you care enough about your life to do the same, but it's your choice to make. Noone's mandating that you carry a concealed firearm. It's the responsible thing to do, but it's your choice.
The extremist gun control advocates lamented that PA would turn into Dodge City when we went 'shall issue' back in '95 or so. Hasn't happened. Most shootings are related to the same things they were back then..the "war on drugs" and the criminal enterprises the 'war' fuels.
Where I used to live (Westmoreland County), one in eight people held a concealed carry permit.
I've never felt safer - except at one of the mega gunshows held bimonthly outside of Pittsburgh.
Hmmm, other examples of people protecting themselves with firearms? Should I name virtually every Ex-Soviet Union country? How about substantial chunks of the Middle East? Africa? Asia?
m l
The US simply hasn't had a domestic land war since the Civil War. But as with every empire (including the US), there will be civil unrest again. Either the gov't will simply stomp on the unhappy unarmed people willing to revolt, or the people will make of their government what they want.
As the US Gov't continues to take away our rights, the people are becoming less and less happy..
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.ht
Article I) freedom of religion, speech, press. Right of peaceful assembly. Right to petition the gov't.
Gone. Not as federal law, but federal law enforcement will use religion, speech, and published works to profile and arrest you.
Gone, you cannot have a group meeting without the potential of the gov't arresting everyone involved, or at least monitoring for future charges. (i.e., 2600 meetings, defcon)
Gone, petitioning the gov't. Try it sometime.
Article II) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Gone. New York you are prohibited from owning firearms. California just decided Amendment II is wrong, except for the gov't. Many other states have their own select laws.
Article IV) right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Gone, as long as they can say the word "Terrorist" when they're doing it. The FBI just announced that anyone with a wireless access point is a terrorist. Add that to the list of:
a) Is of Arabic descent
b) Knows anyone of Arabic descent
c) Belongs to any group with a member of Arabic descent
d) Owns a wireless access point (above)
e) Is in any way, no matter how irrationally, associated with any group that could be considered terrorists. This can include Americans who are part of survivalist groups, "militia", the NRA, and in some cases even American law enforcement.
And now thanks to President Bush, the CIA has the power to neutralize any terrorist threat, foreign or domestic. The CIA "accidently" killed an American citizen in a publicized hit recently, on foreign soil.
Article V) deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Ask the 1000 new citizens of Guantomo Bay, Cuba about this one. Over 1 year, and no charges filed.
Ask Mitnick about his what, 4 years of being held, uncharged.
Have you read the news lately? New York is being widely known for coercing confessions, even from the innocent. From this, I've learned to be a mute whenever speaking to any law enforcement. Even the simple question "Do you know how fast you were going?". If you answer that, it's a confession, no proof required. If you don't, they have to prove what you did.
Ask every person who's had property confiscated by any local law enforcement agency, to never have it returned. They have over $1000 of my property which was "misplaced", to never be seen again.
A friend of mine in Florida had her car confiscated and almost auctioned, for a 10mph speeding ticket. She had to pay over $2000 in bribe money (Donation to a local police group) to get it back.
Article VI) right to a speedy and public trial.
Once again, look down to Cuba.. Or any other person held on "terrorist" charges. Look at any inmate held in a city or county jail on small charges. They can spend months in jail, just to be proven innocent, unless an unreasonable bribe (bail) can be paid.
Article VIII) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ya.. See the above. Check your local paper to see what the bail is for a non-incident related DUI (no harm, no foul?). How about an assult charge? Bar fights constitute those, and everyone's arrested.
How about cruel and unusual. We have a tremendous history of those. From jailhouse beatings, to bombing entire countries.. Do you think the citizens of Afghanastan really deserved to be killed from the actions of a few nuts?
Article IX) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If it's not in the constitution, you still have other rights.
I'll skip through a few more...
Article XV) Right to vote
Gone, if you're a felon, or otherwise detained. Do you think they were handing out ballots in Cuba? There are American citizens, never convicted of anything.
Gone, as in the voting is completely un-just. 30% of a population, and a large number of discarded votes does not constitute a fair election. The Gov't needs to establish a *GOOD* system for elections, rather than their half-assed attempt. You get more people driving with drivers licenses, and sending their kids to school daily, than you do voting.
Article XIX) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
How many jobs does the US Gov't deny women? (don't think it's small). It's a sexist country, no matter what this article may say.
Article XVIII) Prohibition
It was later repealed, but they've expanded it's thought to cover other intoxicants (drugs), which may be perfectly legal in other countries. This includes perscription pharmacuticals, recreational drugs (such as Hash or Marajuana), and harder recreational drugs, such as Heroin and Opium. Look at a heroin junkie, a pot smoker, and a drunk.. Tell me how the stoner is going to be a menace to society to the point of making federal laws against him.. How is he worse than a drunk? Hash and Marajuana are perfectly legal in many other countries. Enforcement in the US varies by state. Possession of any Marajuana in Florida is cause for arrest and either misdeanor or felony charges. In California, you have to have substantial quantity to be even spoken more than a few words to. Some states simply won't touch you now for possession of Marajuana.
So, with that many articles of our constitution stomped all over, how long with the empire of the United States remain? Do you really want to be unarmed when it happens?
As for your question of mishandled firearms, there are currently laws for unlawful discharge, unlawful brandishing, and even improper storage. If you are charged, a judge can and will sign an order stating you will not be allowed to own or posses a weapon. If you are a felon, I don't believe there are *ANY* states where you are allowed to posses a weapon. If you are currently on probation in most states, you cannot drink or posses a weapon. You cannot even associate with known felons, and quite a few other restrictions depending on the charges.
I've known misdemeanor viloaters on non-violent charges who can no longer possess weapons based on their charge. Not hearsay, I've seen the court documents.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Sorry, but there are very, very, very few people that I know that I feel could be trusted to rationally respond with a firearm in a situation like you describe. (there are some, but training is present in every case) Much much more likely is: citizen pulls over, stands up and yells 'stop'; gets shot, perpetrator steals gun, putting more uncontrolled firearms on the street.
Furthermore, I do not ever remember hearing a news report of a 'successful citizen firearm defense'. Your story from Phoenix might be one, but it would be the first. This really is the crux of many arguments - that crimes from stolen guns and gun accidents so greatly outnumber these 'self-defence' scenarios that the tradeoff just doesn't make sense - overall, we're currently hurting ourselves by widespread gun ownership, rather than helping.
The simple fact is this (IMHO) guns are simply too dangerous and too risky for the 'average' person to handle responsibility given the current social structure in the US. There is no "magic bullet" (no pun intended) to fixing this. If all owners were well-trained, it would help. If there were fewer illegal guns on the streets, it would help. If guns were tracked better, it would help.
Your post illustrates what tends to stick in my craw about many (not all) gun advocates, though - they rely heavily on the fact that responsible, trained gun ownership is safe, but absolutely positively resist *any* move to formalize or quantify that. I'm baffled by this - some Gumby walking around with a gun when he's more likely to wet himself if confronted than use the gun is nothing more than easy pickings for gun theft, which just perpetuates the argument.
I personally don't think laws should be made, but rather existing ones enforced. I do beleive their should be a stated purpose for the gun and registering of guns. But, the two do very little for black market guns.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
In looking at gun control issues, I think you have to look at more than just the issue of preventing crime. I would argue that a society is most stable when political and military powers are distributed similarly (and everyone knows it). In that case, there is no temptation to try to overturn political decisions with a military coup. In our society (I'm in the States) the currently serving political leaders have way more power than the average citizen, but the ultimate political power is supposed to be distributed (approximately) among the general population. For this arrangement to be stable over the long term (centuries), military power needs to be distributed similarly. Our current military is full of patriotic and honorable people, and even if given the chance on a silver platter I don't think they would seize political power. But... we can't say what the situation will be like generations from now. While I don't think we need an armed populous to protect our Republic from tyranny NOW, that doesn't mean that some time in the future it won't be needed by a future generation of Americans to deter*, or failing that to fight, domestic tyranny. If we want that future generation of Americans to have the tools they need to ensure the survival of our great Republic then we have to pass on a strong tradition of responsible civilian gun ownership and marksmanship to the next generation... and encourage them to pass it on further. Even if that tradition causes more suffering and loss of life in the short term through gun crime, then I see that as a small price for our generation to pay so that some future imperiled generation of Americans will have the means to protect their liberty. All the gun crime we suffer certainly pales to the loss of treasure and life that some previous Americans have paid for our liberty.
But the gun control argument can be played out again and again with different cosmetic changes. Replace "arms" with "encryption technology" or with "privacy" or even perhaps some day even "the right to vote" and see if it looks familiar. We must ask ourselves time and again the same question: Who can I trust my neighbor with the power to______? Or perhaps the question is: who do I trust more, my neighbor or the politicians and bureaucrats? After all, if we cannot trust our fellow men with arms, then who can we trust to police us? We cannot recruit angels to govern us, after all. Whoa, momentary "The Day the Earth Stood Still" flashback... Sorry. But to be really effective, our "power/responsibility to the people" slogan needs to apply to more than just arms. If we have failed the same fight with privacy or censorship or any other such issue, then the odds are not good that just a few million assault rifles will make everything better. We must make the choice for liberty rather than security and civic responsibility over self indulgence a consistent theme in our culture if we mean for our way of life to stand the test of time.
Crime is a side issue. Just my $0.02.
* Just like nuclear weapons, an armed population doesn't have to actually fight tyranny to prevent it, just the knowledge that they would surely fail will be a deterrence to would be tyrants. If it ever came to a real 3rd American revolution, then the militia concept has already failed in its 1st and best purpose and must try to rectify the situation in a much more undesirable fashion.
>> I didn't mean to imply that Canada is monolithic, simply more monolithic. Certainly there is a mixture/mosaic of cultures there as here, but simply as a matter of population, there is more racial diversity in America. This is a matter of statistics, and certainly doesn't make one better than the other.>
What is certainly true is that she was left exactly as badly hurt as he had intended. He did not need a gun to kill her. What a gun certainly would have done is evened the score. In any event, I'm not willing to cut my losses without guns and just say "well, she may get the shit kicked out of her every few months, but at least she's alive"
Let's think about this for a moment, if there would have been a gun in the house a couple of things could / needed to happen:
- She would have had to have the CHANCE to get the gun (out of her handbag, drawer whatever).
- IF she got the gun out she would have to be able to FIRE it before he could disarm her.
- IF he disarmed her, you better hope that he wasn't so mad at her that he just pulled the trigger.
Arguing that guns de-escalate is like arguing that you can exhaust a fire by pouring Kerosin into it, after all once the house is burned down the fire will die.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
...I would like to find some *unbiased* evidence on the effects (if any) of violent media on our youth.
:-)
GOOD LUCK!
-Derek
I swear if I read another thread like this, it's going to wind up "guns don't kill people, bored Slashdot posters aggravated by obvious and tedious cliches kill people."
you wouldn't mess with granny down the street if you knew she had an assult rifle
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Presumably, each gang knows that granny down the street is unarmed, and presumably they don't care. Granny, armed or not, is irrelevant to their interests. The only time she gets involved in gangland violence is when she's shot as an innocent bystander in a drive-by. And if the shooters aren't afraid of the assault rifle that their target is carrying, why should they be worried about the assault rifle that's propping up the old lady next to him?
If equal armament really was a deterrent in gang violence, then we should just give all the gangbangers the best firearms money can buy. Then they'll all be so afraid of each other that they'll all sit at home, polishing their rifles, counting their ammo, dreaming of the day when those East Coast punkasses come busting in and they have an excuse to actually pull the motherfuckin' trigger... in fact, fuck that shit! I can't take it anymore! I've got the guns, I've got the ammo, I'm takin' it to the streets! Those wack bitches thought they could hide, they got anotha think comin', yo! They got a fully-automatic beating, is what they got comin' Word as bond, bro. Let's get it on!
. . .
Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that equal armament isn't a deterrent for gangsters.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Gun control means hitting your target.
from 1996. Conservatively definining "white" without including the following ethnic groups:
Canada comes out to a 3,718,005 non-white population. That means about 91% white, whereas according to the CIA Factbook, America is 77.1% white.
Sheesh. Only on Slashdot would I have to cite statitics to prove that Canada is whiter than America.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Thanks i'll feel better knowing that the cop who is zipping up the body bag that they just put me in is well trained.
yes. I said it. If everybody was armed, violent crime would not exist. In areas where gun ownsership, crime is extremely low since criminals fear for their safety. There is no way to keep criminals from using guns so make them afraid to comit crimes.
Gun ownership and copyright violations are 2 completely different kettles of fish
These two books are the best scholarly study to date. Rather than the obligatory amazon links, here's some links to Codys in Berkeley.
Armed
More Guns Less Crime
What is good about these books is that they both represent responsible fact-finding based research across a large amount of data and over fairly long periods of time, in addition neither of the researchers had biased funding (though some try to accuse Lott) nor did they have a significant bone to pick starting out.
Kleck began with a modest bias towards gun laws, and against widespread gun ownership, and reversed himself after in depth research.
Lott began with the idea that criminals should behave in a fundamentally economic way towards risk, and basically proved his point, but had no real gun related bias to begin with.
These are both social science results from a utilitarian standpoint. There are many who argue from a philosophical rights standpoint, that even if guns overall impose a cost on society, that cost must be born, just like the costs of free speech and non-incrimination, and non search and seizure rights are born.
The combination of a philosophical position that guns are a right, and the utilitarian position that more guns in the hands of normal citizens mean less crime and less cost, provides a powerful argument for decreasing the legal complexity of gun ownership, incorporating the second amendment upon the states under the fourteenth amendment, and allowing for widespread concealed carry by law abiding citizens (non-felons).
The Journal of the American Medical Association and the CDC have both decided to take a "medical epidemic" approach to gun violence. I believe that Kleck has something good to say about this in "Armed".
In addition, "Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws" is a group specifically formed to provide an opposing position on this topic.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
There was a gun in every corner of my grandparents (rednecks) house. I learned from childhood guns are not toys. Teaching responsiblity and accountability.
http://southernhighlands.yourguide.com.au/detail.
A billion dollars wasted for something that doesn't work and can never be accurate? And isn't even completed?B 6-13A0-46B9-BF90-82A99356D24F%7D
http://www.nationalpost.com/national/story.html?id ={A02202BA-AA91-446F-BFA4-361EA9A160A1}
Gun Control costs way out of control in Canada (and half the guns *not* registered).
http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=%7B8A0875
Bear in mind, this is *only* news from yesterday. There is a lot more. One could go into the probable death of the tourist industry in Cansda. You know, the tourist that used to go there to hunt wild game. On the other hand, they are apparently not trying very hard to keep out those who might be terrorists. That would be profiling I guess. Then, I was also appalled by some problems in the other direction. Best summarized by thie one web site which describe how citizens in the USA on the southern border are virtually being overrun by illegal aliers, sometimes armed with full auto weapons. Tell me how you would resist that and be unarmed. http://www.ranchrescue.com/ So, where is our govenrment?!?!?!?!
Well, we have New York City, Chicago, and Los Angleles. Each of these cities have been the murder capitals of the US in the past three years respectivly, yet each one bans guns. Washinton DC is no better, nor Maryland. Yet that is where the DC sniper did his task.
Gun bans are also not working in Great Britain, where even toy guns and air guns are banned or in the process of it, yet crime is soaring.
Gun bans did work in Nazi Germany however. Just ask the Jews (that survived). Gun bans in some US States did work also in a way. They prevented the Black slaves from defending themselves against the Klan raids. Everything here is documented elsewhere.
Moral of the story: Banning guns leaves good people defenseless. Bad people don't care about the ban.
Yes. Taking someone else's life (even in self-defense) is not something to take lightly. I'd much rather injure myself and someone else while preserving both lives. Even if that person WAS trying to kill me. Taking a life for any reason is never a triumph unless you have no internal code of law.
Un-news
This is a reply to several posts I've seen in this thread condemn that "assault weapons" or weapons that simply don't exist. I've never seen a weapon with a ceramic barrel, and in the US it is illegal to own or manufacture a weapon that can defeat metal detectors.
Anyway, on the matter of "assualt weapons" - I use scare quotes because this is an invented term. The term was invented to classify a set of weapons that was both scary looking and supposedly super-deadly. I find that people enjoy making imaginary distinctions between "hunting arms" and "assualt weapons". This is silly.
The most lethal weapon that an American can legally own is a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot. Not an Uzi, Tec-9, AK-47, AR-15, handgun, or any of the other weapons that look "scary". Yes, that's right - the shotgun at Wal-Mart is the most devistatingly effective gun available. It's also the most common and "legitimate" hunting arm.
Teflon, steel-core, or otherwise armor piercing ammunition for handguns is illegal in the US. Armor piercing ammunition for rifles, on the other hand, is legal. High powered hunting rifles will pierce a standard bullet proof vest without the aid of armor piercing rounds. Soft body armor simply isn't designed to withstand a rifle.
The point is that it bothers me when people take something that looks scary (like my rifle) and say "this is a child killing machine!". It's not just FUD, it's a lie.
If you feel that people, yourself included, shouldn't have the right to defend themselves - well, that's your choice. You have the right to believe and say what you wish. But please don't delude yourself in thinking that "assault weapons" are responsible for a significant amount of crime or are especially lethal. It's just misdirection.
You are really begging for this reply :)
Hmm, how about that sniper a while ago somewhere in USA? He had his bullets under control. Guess what! He killed people.
btw this is anonymous cuz slashdot mail servers appear to not be registering new folks in a timely manner...
g io nguntab.htm
e nc estats.html
. ht m
From the responses I read... well let's just say they explain why valium is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Why not try to give the person what they were looking for?
http://www.agoodfight.org/firefacts.asp
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/re
http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviol
http://www.comotionmakers.org/gunviolence.html
http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/06111998/g3
Let's get something else straight. In England, since they passed their anti-gun laws, gun crimes against civilians has risen. Dramatically.
Only criminals use guns in crimes, and they will use them whether there are laws against guns or not. Thats the definition of being a criminal. Only in England they know their victims are likely to be unarmed. Not much to stop them there. Here in the U.S. thugs have to think twice before pulling a weapon, because in millions of cases each year, law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped the transmission of crimes.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Guns just make bullets go really fast.
You ever try walking into a Seven-Eleven and saying," Ok buddy, give me all the money or I'll push this bullet against your forhead"?
Trust me, they just stand there with that "deer in the headlights" look on their faces.
KFG
Also, swimming pools, ponds, etc. kill more than guns (by 100x I think). I believe this comes from the CDC, but I also heard it on Paul Harvey a month ago.
Agreed. Ever read "The Dark Knight Returns"?
In the words of Batman: "A gun is a coward's weapon. A liar's weapon. We kill because we've made it too easy. Sparing ourselves the work... and the mess..."
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
...no one's collecting it.
http://reason.com/0111/co.sm.dc.shtml
The rate in the US is 10x that of the UK's.
Er, no. The murder rate was 5.7x, the rape rate was 3x, as of 1996. source.
And note that England came off much, much worse in the victim survey than it did in the police statistics. The UK rates of robbery, assault, burglary and theft were all about twice the US rate(*) in 1995 -- a big change from a decade or two ago when the UK seemed like such a civilised place.
(*to be more precise, they were 1.4x, 2.3x, 1.7x, and 2.2x respectively)
I play Nerd-Folk!
"More guns, Less Crime" John Lott - University of Chicago - is one of the most comprehensive studies around. Worth the read.
Perhaps not an unbiased opinion, but at least its based on facts.
Owning a gun saved my life (and in process took someone elses.) Like the author of the story, I own a gun, but I only got it for range shooting, because I wanted to learn. Like many Americans, I always felt fairly secure in my own home and never thought that I needed a gun for protection.
That view changes pretty fast when there is a deranged lunatic hopped up on meth breaking through your window with clearly expressed purpose of killing you and your friends. Even then, I was just trying to get myself and my friends out of the house in one piece. I grabbed the gun only because it was my only means of defence. I only shot when I had no other choice.
People say that I should be the poster child for the NRA. Not sure about that. What I am sure about is that if I did not have a gun at that moment, I'd probably be dead. And if I made one wrong decision when I was trying to find my friends(I know exactly when) I would have probably not only be dead but also have delivered an extra weapon to our attacker.
All in all what people refuse to accept is that a gun is just a tool. Like a computer or a car. It's requires responsibility in use, like a computer or a car. The lack of responsibity, taught in US under the guise of "freedom" - THAT is the cause of the Americas current state. If you think the guns should be illegal, then you should also outlaw cars, as they kill way more people then guns. And don't forget that without computers all those pesky crackers (no pun intended) could not hack into anything. So out with computers!!!!
Somewhere there, American people should learn to be responsible for their actions instead of blaming it on everyone and everything else.
That responsibility should also be applied when we allow people to buy guns. I do believe we should not just blindly give everyone guns. There must be a process to make sure the person is responsible. But that has not much to do with guns, that has to do with education.
-H
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
the way i was brought up, there wasn't a passionate stance on guns pro or con so i figure i'm fairly neutral. essentially i think gun ownership should be inversly proportionate to population density. people shouldn't be allowed to tote high power rifles around in a city, but someone out in the middle of the wilderness might be considered stupid not to have one. it seems the letter of the law doesn't quite jive with the spirit of common sense in this respect. we shouldn't abolish guns and we shouldn't have a free for all. seems population density might be a good measure to define where the line should be between the two extremes.
My point is. I could of had any gun I wanted except maybe an automatic for under $100. Sure it may have had a history but if I'm commiting crimes already, What the fuck does it matter? Criminals don't buy guns at gun stores using their true identities. They have their own marketplace to go shopping in to get whatever the hell they want. It's called the criminal underground.
The only thing gun control does it takes the right to bear arms away from law abidding citizens. If more citizens had guns, you would be sure that random violent street crime would plumet. Since now the perp has to worry about you and the guy/girl next to you and across the street since they're armed too. It called deterence.
The only things I would advocate gun control for is military class weapons. Like no-one needs a 50 cal rifle that can hit from 2km away and pierce armor. The perfect weapon for blowing up natural gas repositories, think terrorism.
I personaly carry mace these days for defense. I got nothing to prove by bashing someones head in. I just want you out of commission so I can get the hell out of there, I keep my guns at home (all legal). When it comes to defending my home, nothing beats a good shotgun with a nice spread.
Anonymous for good reason. The statues havent run out yet.
Yeah, you put them in yer sights and let me pull the trigger, paw.
I doubt many will read this, as it's in the thousands now. But I thought I'd post anyway.
8 0/ 002-2585911-0691246
A great article on gun control and how it's worked in the UK:
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
An entire book on the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/07615255
The original poster hits the nail on the head: facts without an attached interpretation are thin on the ground. There is a great separation of fact from idea on both sides.
The NRA has been using the second amendment line forever completely ignoring the language that essentially says that gun ownership carries with it more responsibility than an occasional oiling. For their part, the anti-gun forces work with the assumption that gave us prohibition: 'if you say that something is illegal, it and all the effects that come from it will vanish with no further complications.'
The only genuinely honest reference I have ever seen is an essay by Paul Fussel (SP), in his book, 'Thank God for the Atom Bomb and other essays.' In it, he takes the second amendment at face value by including the line about 'a well-regulated militia' that the NRA never quotes and uses it as the basis for a very reasonable scheme in which he posits that the government could offer to buy out gun owners at a fixed-price per weapon and that everyone who didn't opt out by taking it would be become a legal member of a national militia.
It is a brilliant attack on the NRA's misquoting The Second Amendment which has been used to support unregulated, freewheeling gun ownership. With the authority of someone who served as a marine during the second world war, Fussel invites the reader to imagine gun-lovin' weekend warriors, subjecting themselves to military discipline, physical fitness training, and the joys of the slit-trench latrine several times a year.
Fussel is very fair in attacking the NRA's position misquoting The Second Amendment and he does in the spirit of bitterness at the nonsense of the NRA's tactics and the misrepresentations those tactics lead to. It is not a diatribe against gun-ownership per se, but rather what is perpetually said in support of it.
On the other side of the argument, California's gun laws are a prime example of what happens when lawmakers find themselves unable to eliminate firearms ownership but have enough support to do what they can. California's gun laws define practically any modern firearm as an 'assault weapon' and limit the functionality of firearms by such determinants as barrel-length and magazine capacity. This trend goes so far in California that many pistols are treated by the law as if they were machine guns and in order to sell there, manufacturers like The Springfield Armory go so far as to make two versions of some of their more popular rifles: one for California and one for everywhere else.
Personally, I think we need a new theory of gun ownership. I think that we should sit down and really think about guns, honestly, not to ban them but to control and regulate their ownership.
Like the original poster, I've shot rifle matches. I have owned firearms and I think if you own a weapon, someone, somewhere should *know* that you own it in the same way that it is required that someone somewhere knows that you own a car or that your construction project involves your possessing dynamite. As the humor-impaired have pointed out here, 'physics kill people,' and when it comes to the possibility of generating the energy that does it, a car and a bullet are similar and yet no one goes red in the face when you talk about, licensing, registering and insuring them before they can use their cars. In the end, it's all a matter of our cultural expectations and the pity of the thing is that the two sides in the debate exemplified by the original poster works to make sure that rationalized gun ownership and gun use will never happen.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Here is a link to some scholarly research on the issue. The nice part is the authors back up their assertions with facts not anectdotes. The Lott/Mustard study is noteworthy because it gathered data from all 3400+ counties in the US and uses scientific methods to reach a conclusion.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
Question: What is the difference between all those things and guns? Answer: Guns aren't regulated. Question: Americans are hopelessly lost in mazes of gun-goon Jesuit logic, arent they. Answer: Yes, for the love of God, yes they they are fucking morons when it comes to guns, wars and soldiers. Problem is, guns, wars and soldiers is all they know.
What are you going to do? Can't shoot them, unless you yourself are an American.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts
or any of:
http://home.attbi.com/~guys/guns.html
http://w
http://www.handguncontrol.net
http://www.2asis
http://www.Gunnery.Net/gunfact
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_fac
http://www.concealcarry.org
http://www.gw
http://www.imagineonlin
http://www.guns-world.net
http://www.secondfreedom.net
http://www.2ndamdl
http://geekswithguns.com/articles/GunFacts
http://rkba.org/indiv.html
http://www.Texas
My god this is a hackneyed concept. Is there a comedian in the world who hasn't based a routine around it?
Several people have mentioned the CDC data, and other statistical data on deaths and injuries from firearms.
It should be noted that these samples have what is called (ironically) "survivorship bias". When you look at mutual fund performance, you see very few funds that do badly every year in a row for many years, because those managers get fired! Only the funds that do about average or better stay around.
Similarly you don't go to the police departments and hospitals and see records of the number of people who are healthy and walking around after foiling a violent crime attempt by having a firearm. They don't report to hospitals or police...
Very few people (other than Kleck) have tried with any real statistical methods to measure the number of people for whom having a gun meant nothing happened to them on that potentially very tragic day when they used it to scare off an attacker.
According to Kleck's data, that number is extremely high.
The correlation between gun injury and gun ownership is built into the datasets that are being used by the CDC and others. One example is that people who live in dangerous neighborhoods, or who sell drugs, or who hang out with friends who belong to gangs also tend to buy guns "for protection".
Furthermore, of the people who live in relatively safe areas who buy guns, very few of them will ever need to fire their gun, even if they do use it to prevent an attack. Almost all people who use guns defensively never fire a shot.
The fact that guns are more likely to kill due to Suicide and Accident has everything to do with how effective they are at stopping attacks without ever firing a shot, much less killing the attacker.
Klecks' book "Armed" (referenced below) deals with this issue quite well.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
Ok, I'll lay this out in simple terms.
1: Why do people have guns?
A) To hunt
B) For Self or Family Defense
C) As a aspect of employment (cop, criminal, or soldier)
2: What's this whole 2nd amendment thing?
A study of the historical climate of the times, and reading of ANY literature from the period in which it was drafted, shows clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, that the 2nd amendment was intended as a check against a tyrannical government. it's really, really, clear.
3: What about all the vilence / death / shootings, etc.
It's part of being a human. violence will happen, no matter what you want or do. People are just like that, OK? It's just that unlike most parts of the world, as a US Citizen you have the ability to defend your family from violence in a effective fashion.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Yes, yes and more yes... Oh how I wish I had moderator points today... I had them two days ago, nothing interesting, and now this... Gun Control... oh how I'd like to mod your post up...
It so very much comes down to the whole point of the 'moment'... people who are otherwise fantastic people can have moments where they really want to hurt someone else... it may be due to alcohol, it may be due to them having some real anger management issues... but the thing is... if they don't have a handy gun or other weapon on them, then the worst that will probably happen is the other party gets a black eye or broken nose... when the agressor comes to his senses he may have ruined a friendship, or maybe can even make up with the other party... if it were a gun toting angry person, then the other person is dead... no way to make it up to them, no way to mend your mistakes, because they're dead.
All good natured kidding aside, part of the problem with finding unbiased studies or what not is that there are no controlled scientific circumstances in the world. In the absence of clear-cut control (not gun control) groups, everyone involved in the issue tries to frame their argument with some sort of "well in this SIMILAR country we see that _______ happens." To which their opposition points out the flaw in their methods, and the argument disintegrates into the usual comments from there.
If you have to debate this issue with anyone, it's best to look at where they're coming from and try to create as sympathetic a statement as possible. Even then you have to realize 95% of people aren't going to be persuaded.
To me, it boils down to a couple of things:
Just when I thought I had retired from posting to gun threads...
I saw a recent UN small arms study, the US has over 250 million firearms, roughly 84 per 100 people. Canada has nowhere close to that rate.
Canada had roughly 532 murders in 2001, and 528 in 2000. Only 132 murders were committed by firearms, the rest were with other means.
The anti-gunners since 1989 (marc lepine) had made it extremetly diffence to own firearms in Canada now, its very sad the Liberals social engeering project doesnt include anybody but the Military and police owning guns in Canada.
Now all Canadians need to have a firearms license.
Shotguns & most bolt action rifles are considered non-restricted
AR-15's, handsguns etc are considered restricted
Steyr Aug, AK-47 etc are considered to be prohibited with grandfathering
You don't need premission to move/transport non-restricted firearms.
You need premission to transport restricted and probihited firearms, you can only use a handgun, AR-15 for target shooting THATS IT. You have to get a ATT (autohoriztion to transport) to take restricted guns to the range, gunsmith etc.
All firearms must be stored, and transported in according to safe storage laws set out in the law. Locked and unloaded at all times and out of sight
Most semi-auto rifles are RESTRICTED. There is only roughly 4 non-restricted semi-auto rifles left, Sig Black special, Ruger Mini-14, SKS and the AR-180B. Thats it, all the other semi-auto's like the AR-15 are restricted.
The AK-47 is prohibted, when the owner dies it has to be turned over to the police to be destoryed, nobody else will ever be allowed to only AK-47 ever again in Canada, there is many guns prohbited. Benelli shotguns, SPAS-12, SPAS-15, the "combat shotguns" were all non-restricted, then the gov't changed them to restricted, which meant they all had to be registered (all handsguns have been registered in Canada since 1934) so once the government got the list of all the combat shotgun owners, it changed the status again to Prohbited without grandfathering, which meant they all had to be turned in to be destoryed.
Compensation is not paid, because no due process for compensation of confiscated property exists in Canada. The existance of private property is not recognized by the federal govt.
Now on to the current registry to hear about in the news, all restricted guns and probhited are registered. What the govt wanted to do was in 1995 was make all non-restricted guns restricted. Basiclly your hunting bolt action rifles and shotguns. So far they have put $1billon down the drain to find out who owns what
Most murders in Canada are committed by handgun, which have all been registered since 1934. So how the hell would a non-restricted firearm registery be useful ?
According to the Canadian Alliance firearms critic for firearm policy. 74% of all handguns found at murder scene have been unregistered. Owning a unregistered restricted firearm even with a firearms license has been a crime since 1934.
Since 1944 in Canada you needed a premit to even carry a registered pistol on your person.
Then in 1977, the government made it illegal to use firearms for any kind of self defence.
You aren't allowed to use lethal force to protect your property, or against robbers, muggers etc. Even if you fear for your life and kill somebody in your house you will still be carried with manslaughter and firearm offences and you have to pray the prosecutor decides to not goto court or the jury lets you off. If you use a legal firearm for defence you will be going to jail along with the criminal
Its one of the many reasons we have such a high rate of property crimes, the prison system is just a just and release system, they go in and they never get any serious jail time for theft, robbery, car theft etc.
Center firearm semi auto rifles ae only allowed to have 5 rounds magazines. The pre-ban magazines dont exist here they all have to be modified to accept only 5 rounds. There is no limit on bolt action center fire rifles. For semi-auto pistols the limit is 10 rounds. For rimfire there is no magazine limit. (unlike the US, there is a limit of 10 rounds in rimfire magazines in the USA, useless it was a pre-ban magazine)
Allan Rock the justice minister to started the C-68 (canadian firearms law that start all this and the registry) Said he only wanted to the military and police to have firearms. He also said if they registry cost more then $150 million he would scrap it (its way ovr $1billion dollars now). The only reason now to register hunting rifles is so one day you have a list of all them and who where you can seize them from.
Oh also all handguns must have a barrel length longer then 105mm.
So after all my blattering whats the point ? Criminals will always get there guns, and they wont register them.
Already handgun 74% found at crime scenes are unregistered, I doubt the owner had a firearms license to even own them. I doubt they follow safe storage laws, carry on there person and ignore the magazine limit capacity.
For more information on how defenceless Canadians are check out
http://www.vaxxine.com/scon/disarmed.htm
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/articlesofinterest
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications.htm
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/gbpress2002.htm
and my favorite place.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com
While Michael Bellesiles "ARMING AMERICA: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" (ISBN: 0375402101) does not address crime vs guns, it does address the perceptions of the evolution of the current gun culture. While the NRA has blasted it, I didn't find it anti-gun at all. I think it's an important read for understanding how we got where we are today.
p
A review is at http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0375402101.as
So the 17 year old is not a child? How about a 16 year old? A 13 year old? We draw the line at 18, and have for years. Neither the 10 year old nor the 17 year old should be dying.
Your particular moral perspective on whether the 17 year old "deserves" to die is irrelevant here.
Jan
why doesn't anything happen when little kids run around yelling, "Bang! Bang!"
I think Dennis Miller said that, but I'm not sure.
Correction: Lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
If one reads both the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the full 2nd Amendment (especially without the comma after the word "militia" as it is in the original copy) it becomes VERY obvious that the whole reason for including the amendment was so that the average citizen could have a means of protecting him/herself from an oppressive government.
This gets even more blatantly clear when you read such things as the Federalist Papers and other remarks made by the guys that wrote and included this amendment in the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Basically, if you want to put the amendment into modern terms, it says something like:
"Since we need a military in order to protect our country from attack by another country, the citizens must be allowed to have guns to protect themselves against the possibility of the military being used by an oppressive leader."
For those that don't have a handy copy of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (not the Preamble to the Constitution itself that you had to memorize back in 8th grade), it says:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
See what it says? The whole reason we even have the BoR is to restrict the GOVERNMENT, not the people!
Decisions of the most overturned circuit court in the nation notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with arming the military.
For most able-bodied people (including your sister-in-law facing an unarmed assailant) conventional self-defence, martial arts, or similar training would likely be much more effective, and less risky. Of course, this is hard and takes lots of time, so doesn't appeal to most people - way easier just to go buy a gun.
To be clear, I'm not against gun ownership, but I am against unqualified, unsafe, unaudited ownership. If it's a freedom that is so important and so valuable, then step up to the table with proof that you take it seriously, and are commited to responsible ownership and use.
"Here is a short list of things people kill other people with that should also be banned: baseball bats hockey sticks cars knives chemicals cigarettes sexually transmitted diseases piano wire ice picks..."
with the exception of cigarettes and std's, there is a good use for all of those things you listed. I'm pretty sure you can't play baseball or hockey with a gun. At least not in 42 states.
-Rabbit
Because it's hard to be unbiased when you pit a pragmatic argument dealing with self defense and constitutional rights (in the US) against an emotional argument. Both sides have a difficult time seeing the bigger picture.
First, let me say that on their own, guns are bad. They are designed, espically handguns, to cause distruction. Theres no other way to put that. A gun is a weapon, plain and simple. And it todays day and age, I wouldn't mind at all if all guns just disappeared off the face of the planet.
However, since we live in reality, private ownership of guns become a neccesity for a variety of reasons when used properly. Since the pandora's box of instant death in the palm of your hand has been opened, it has been inpossible to turn back. No matter what legislation is passed, two dangerous or potentially dangerous groups of people will always have guns: Criminals and Governments.
There are reasons why we have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, and it goes beyond the idea of protecting ourselves from the King of England. If we in America ever reach the stage where our government goes compleatly out of control and the democratic process breaks down, (some would argue that is already happining), what tool other then guns does the population have at their disposal to force positive change?
In addition, there seems to be signigant evidence that private gun ownership does help the innocent (allowing them to protect themselves from the criminal element) more then it hurts them (accidental shootings).
In addition, the numerous downsides to an armed population could be signifigantly reduced by simply changing our perspective about guns. We require that people have an understanding of the safety of guns, we teach them to respect guns for the power that they hold. We get it into peoples heads that when your drunk and angry, you leave the gun at home.
Personally, I don't own a gun, and I don't think I ever could. This stems more from my own individual feelings about the importance of life. I've gone shooting with freinds, and always have enjoyed it. It's been said that you shouldn't own or pull out your gun unless you absolutly intend to use it. My own personal reflections revealed that I wouldn't be able to do use deadly force regardless of the circumstances, and by having that option available and not being able to use it I could cause more problems then I could prevent.
Unfortunatly, when you start getting into the complex battle between morality and personal responsibility surrounding something as important as human life, the pundents on both side of the issue often conviently neglect objectivity.
The Internet is generally stupid
CATO has some of the best independent studies and reviews of all sides of the issue. Very thouroughly done and documented so you can review the data for yourself. *SPOILER* Their conclusions support gun freedom quite strongly.*/SPOILER*
A professor at the State University of New York
at Binghamton completed a study expecting to
refute the findings of Lott, and instead, to his
surprise, confirmed them.
His re-analysis confirmed that increased concealed
carry by law abiding citizens reduced crime.
I don't recall his name, but the study was done
within the last twelve months
There never were 'good old days.' My grandparents, while out for a beer at the neighborhood tap, watched two guys 'cap' someone at the bar. A few years later, a drive-by killed the wrong guy in front of the same bar. As they tell a different story, there was a near miss of a Columbine-lite in the neighborhood among some middle class white kids in the 50's. (Of course those kids didn't have access to Drug War weapons).
It seems ironic to me that in the suburbs and rural areas, where one is statistically exposed to less violent crime from strangers, people frequently have guns in their homes 'for protection.' But in the big city, where there appears to be a greater risk from stranger-crime, many people refuse to have a gun in the house. They (as I do) believe that a gun in the home is likely to be used against you in a home invasion. Also, it appears that the risk from the gun being used in an effective suicide or in a friend/relative crime is greater than the benefit of 'protection.'
Prohibition doesn't work. Didn't work for alchohol, doesn't work for drugs, won't work for guns. Social stigma, on the other hand, can work. I don't associate with herion users. I think that people need to speak out and express the idea that it's a bad idea to have non-hunting/non-sporting guns.
I'm a big First Amendment freak, so it's only fair that I take the Second Amendment serioiusly. Taken literally, I believe that it protects the rights of memebers of well organized national defence militia to bear muzzle-loaded muskets. Taken more generally, I believe that the government should fear the citizenry. There was a day and age when the general population could rise up and militarily overthrow a government. I don't see that as possible in the US today. Rather, I think it's critical that we all keep and maintain the ability to monkey wrench and sabotage the US if that was needed to overthrow a government that was failing to uphold the constitution.
Removing guns from lawful, responsible people does nothing to keep them out of the hands of actual criminals
Don't you think there is a bit of criminal inside everyone of us? Do you really trust the human race to be so civil? Do you want to take the risk of somebody breaking into your lawfull house in an unlawfull way and breaking open your perfectly safe cabin because he knows he doesn't even have to bring his gun at all? Do you want to take the risk of young children playing around with it even when you're not looking (and god knows you're bound to make that sorry mistake at some point)? Do you want to make sure the crooks come more heavily armed than you beause they know you're gonna be armed, and the one who shoots first wins?
Then by all means, get a gun.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in. You may not own one, but no one knows that but you.
Come on. If they're breaking in, they're breaking in. They'll come prepared, trust me. It's not like some petty thieve is going to break in these days, those days are over. Imho, however honest and sincere and lawfull you may be, it is not your right to kill a person, just because you want to stop him. At this point you're excercising control over somebody's life, something that you don't (and never do) own. You have the right to drag him off of your property, maybe, but not in a body bag. Those are pretty medieval practices.
The less guns there are, the less opportunities for people to become 'mortally violent', when arguments get out of hand. The better you can control existing gun possession, the easier you can track criminal links, contacts, people, deals, money. The easier it is to safeguard existing weapons stocks.
Society has invented things like insurance, police for a reason, not because you supposedly have the right to play god in your backyard. You elliminate misunderstandings with terrible endings if you do not allow them to happen. There is no fake sense of security, of "understanding" each other. Without a gun, there is real fear for real danger. Most people don't like that last part, but it is imho the best assessment of a critical situation that lives longest. Hollywood had some serious gun-lobby adds running in the 80ies and 90ies, and it won't be over soon, but e.g. most of European countries have a strict gun-ban, and it works. It's not like a life without a gun is making you less mature, less male-macho-crap-whatever, on the contrary. A gunshot can be an easy way out, but it's not the right way. If society needs help you can either kill it, or help it.
I do have the feeling that the people that are pro-guns have a slight distrust in the system alltogether, and they'd rather protect themselves than count on the system to help when in need. Maybe it's cheaper in tax-dollars, and you're right, msot of the time accidents don't happen. But things like alcohol or fights with the neighbours can have nasty consequences sometimes. I wouldn't want that risk lying about in my house. The mother of a friend of mine shot herself through her head. Because she could. The gun was in her house, she knew how to use it. If she had been taking drugs, or slashed her wrists instead, she might still have been alive. Now she has decided herself, and, well, I respect here wishes, but it's not like the problem she had in her life went away or anything. She gave up the fight. I think that's very brave, but if she had no gun.. well.. guns are pretty final.
Your shot.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Check out the guns on this guy
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
The kilogram is not a unit of pressure.
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
Well that answers the question conclusively. Fatalities from firearms are only in the 10s of thousands while millions of crimes are stopped due to citizens carrying guns. That nearly 100 crimes stopped per fatality. There must be some huge comspiricy to prevent this information from being widely known before now.
Why? I believe that it is the NRA.
I have the right to drive a car. I suspect that unless you are young or have been very irresponsible you have the right to drive a car too.
It is a right that most americans cherish
I had to prove before I could have my right that I knew how to drive and understood the many laws of the road. I needed a minumum number of hours of actual practice before obtaining my ability. I have to register my car, pay taxes on it, and insure it for liability againt the harm that I may cause others. I may not drive my car while intoxicated. There are limits to the kind of car I can drive.
But despite all that nobody is claiming that I do not have the right to drive a car!
The Auto Club is not sending me mailers every time someone wants to put up a stop light saying that the government is trying to take away my right to drive a car! (Moreover here is where to send your money to help us protect your right to drive a car!)
But the NRA, to bolster its own political power base and to increase its fundraising has created this atmosphere of fear and crisis and persecution. It is only in cases where their position is completely bankrupt (teflon coated bullets, undetectable plastic handguns) do they ever seem to move from this tactic and in each case their initial reaction is allways the same 'they are trying to take away your right own a gun'.
To bring this back to the original question the reason that there is no unbiased studies is that there is no room for an unbiased conclusion. You look at everything and it is 'well they are from the NRA' or 'they are from Handgun Control' or 'they were funded by' and so on. Everything must be tossed into one camp or the other because the sides, particularly the NRA, has delineated everything in the starkest division of black or white. You are either 'pro second ammendment' or you are planning on 'taking honest citizens guns away'.
Whenever you read people's viewpoints on gun control, you should always look at where they live as well as what they say. Gun control to people who live in a gated communities means something a lot different than what it means to single women living in the Bronx. It very easy to say ban all guns when you live in a neigborhood regularly patrolled by security guards. I think Mr. Horowitz(sic?) was the first to point this out.
Fact: Guns don't kill people, Dangerous minorities do!
Ok before you bash me let me explain, by minorities I do not mean Black, Hispanic, Asian or any other race, by minorities I mean people freaking nutz enough to shoot someone with a gun, that includes trash from every ethic group no matter to which they belong.
Personally I feel that the author of this article has a bit of a problem with guns from the beginning since they have already put groups like the NRA in the extremists category, the pure fact is groups like these with millions of members do accurate studies on the subject of guns and gun control, if you don't believe it then id like to see someone come up with proof that proves they foraged a single study they have done. The NRA is no more of a threat to this country than any other organization that tries to protect the rights given to Americans.
And I don't know about you but if someone breaks into my house sometime in the future I want to know that I can protect myself and my family, and taking guns away from the public will only assure that the criminals can break into any house and do what ever they want knowing that the residences have nothing to protect themselves with because they are law-abiding.
I most absolutely recommend you read "More Guns, Less Crime - Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", by John R. Lott Jr.
1 3530.ctl
Here's an address where you can read a bit about the book... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/
Mr Lott's book is a very dry, analytical look at the hard numbers involved. This text in particular, is hated by the gun control lobby for the way it looks at the numbers... then challenges the extremists' point of view by looking at the numbers using their arguments. The key is not in which numbers either side chooses to include. It lies in which numbers one side or the other chooses to EXCLUDE, in order to come up with "the solution" they want.
I found this to be an excellent resource to back up many discussions between myself and my non-shooting friends.
You can judge for yourself if you think it is biased either way. Personally, I dont think it is, given the NATURE of the attacks against Mr. Lott's findings.
Ken Cormack
NRA Member
Sure it is. You're just excempting the CRIMINAL from this "internal code of law". If you use deadly force against someone, you should expect to recieve it in return. If you are violating the rights of others, you should not expect any consideration from them.
You have NO RESPONSIBILITY to someone who is assaulting you.
You're simply perpetrating a double standard.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
True. However, we've all seen how effective policing contraband can be. We've had two attempts at prohibition that failed miserably. Why should anyone think that a 3rd will work any better?
Putting everyone in straightjackets will not alter the conditions that lead to gun violence. At best, it will mask the underlying problems.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Go watch the movie, in theaters now.
It's quite funny.
And if you think it is about gun control I think you missed a very important point.
The Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov) has death rate statistics. It helps keep things in perspective, when you can look at actual numbers.
Taken as an absolute, gun deaths look pretty bad. But you have to remember that the USA is a large population (about 280 million), so even a small percentage is a big number. When compared to much more trivial causes of death, the numbers don't look so bad.
I actually start to wonder why (aside from the emotional issues, obviously) people are dedicating so much attention to one cause of death, when there are so many others which are more significant (if saving lives is the goal, and I assume it is).
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
From this far away, (New Zealand), arguments about gun control in the US seem as strange as ever. The experience here, in Canada and other similar countries, shows that the real issue is not total gun control, but control of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons that are designed to kill people.
Hand guns and semi-automatics are virtually forbidden here but it is relatively easy to get a licence for a hunting weapon. Our ratio of guns owned to people is relatively high and there does not seem to be any reason for believing that we have a placid non-violent population.
However the figures speak for themselves - population a shade over 3.9 million; 67 murders (from all causes) last year.
Perhaps I can try to sum it up:
Guns don't kill people;
People kill people; (but they are much more likely to do it if they have a gun close to hand).
Welcome to life, most people will not go through the effort of paying for and carring out a study unless they have a significant interest in the results of the study and a pretty darn good idea of what the studies results will be (favorable to their side). You and I just don't care enough about the result to carry out the study.
That being said, since both sides do carry out studies on this on a regular basis, try to find as much as you can from each side. Read up on their methodology, as both sides usually do some things that are not even close to good study practices. However, they will usually give you some bit of the real truth.
My own thoughts are that America has a lethal violence problem. We are more swift to react with violence with almost any tool at hand, cars knives, guns, blunt objects, and well you get the picture. I would guess that this is related to the individualism and risk taking that is central to the culture of the country. Part of the reason the US has guns and issues is that we are rapidly moving from a very population sparce country to a more densely populated country. Canada probably has a better record because it is that much less populated. Europe likely disarmed because it is much more dense. However, this does not explain Australia's recent gun bans.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Thousands of Americans are killed by criminals using guns. According to well documented research over 160,000,000 people have been killed by totalitarian governments in this past century. Look here for some eye opening figures. The average person on the planet in the past century had a much greater chance of being killed by a dictator as a fellow citizen in an armed free society. In other words, guns are much more dangerous when concentrated in the hands of a government then in the hands of a free people.
I had a very interesing visit to the Sydney Australia Jewish museum
There was an old New York Times from the 1930s with an article about how Adolf Hitler passed a gun control law banning Jews from possesing guns. I imagine there were a lot fewer jews killing each other after that law was passed!
I strongly suggest looking at the first link above. It is really shocking what totalitarian governments have done in the 20th century.
"I fear the government that fears my gun"
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have an even better idea, ---------Criminals who cause crime should pay 3rd party liability insurance.---------- This way, innocent people will not have to pay useless fees that void the point of trying to protect themselves from being robbed in the first place.
uh, sorry? joe isuzu is still alive...
Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA or the Brady Foundation.
This is natural. Would you spend your time or money on a study which you had absolutely no interest either way in?
I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas.
How about these?
Pro-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Anti-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Fill in the blanks with whatever you want, whether you've researched it or not. Won't affect the veracity of them at all. Statistics shouldn't be listened to at all for these arguments. Pay attention to moral or logical arguments, not a biased half-truth.
live(free) || die;
As for the comments about Somalis forcing the US military out with small arms, I agree with the rest of you in laughing out loud at the statement. Les Aspin wouldn't allow the military to bring in tanks because it was an "escalation". Targeting from the air was strictly controlled by an unwieldy UN C3I system, and the decision to make a daylight air assault raid in the middle of an enemy-held urban environment was questionable at best. The Rangers and Delta operatives still inflicted massive casualties on Aideed's militia while sustaining relatively few casualties. At virtually any other period in American history, the Mogadishu operation would have been considered a tremendous feat of American arms.
As with the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, the battle was won on the ground, but lost in the media.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
A Militia of One
/modified from "An Army of One"
The U.S. private citizen is the most powerful, most respected and most feared ground force in the world. At it's core, the success lives and dies on every citizen's ability to think and to take decisive action -- and to own a firearm that functions properly (well regulated).
Fundamentally, no one except private citizens are willing to protect all that the U.S. Constitution stands for. Each citizen must defend this to his/her last breath with Knowledge, Truth, Respect, Honor, Integrity and Courage.
To accomplish this daunting task citizens must invest in firearms that rival government military, recruiting fellow citizens who are strong in mind, body, and soul, and who understand the power of teamwork.
The citizen equips himself to make a significant difference, to deter foreign invasion, and to enforce the U.S. Constitution on domestic soil.
Don't tread on us.
Hammer of Truth
Remember this day folks.
/. jumped the shark
The undebatable day that
Switzerland has a low gun mortality rate even though most people own firearms. However, these people are trained to use them in their compulsory military service. However, in the US, it doesn't take much more than money to own and operate a firearm. I don't like gun control, even mandatory waiting periods, but I think people should have to pass something like a proficiency test to own/operate a firearm. We do the same for cars, so why not guns?
Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
Since most of this thread just degenerated into the typical gun control flamewar I thought I would actually repond to the question at hand.
I believe the most unbiased report on guns and crime rates has to be
John Lott's "More guns less crime".
He didn't come up with the name until after he did the study. The name makes it sound like he was biased to start but he makes it very obvious why he wasn't. The forward is the best part of the book, since it is now on second edition, he talks about the reactions he got once he finished his book and then once it got media attention.
Gets pretty detailed in the statistical analysis but it is very good overall and the closest thing you are going to find to an unbiased source in my opinion, Good luck in your research!
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
Lyapunov:
You asked for unbiased sources. I did a search of the comments (over 1,400 so far) and did not find this:
The PBS (Public Broadcasting System, the government-sponsored TV network in the USA) had an excellent program years ago on its FRONTLINE series. It was hosted by the late Jessica Savich. This was the most objective and informative program I have ever seen on the topic you ask about. I hope you can obtain a videotape of the hour-long documentary; it is fundamentally useful, and it is absolutely NOT dated today.
Next: in that program, a book was mentioned, and the author was interviewed. Sorry, I don't have the bibliographic data at hand, but: the author was, as far as I can recall, at the University of Chicago. His research on gun crimes and crime prevention was seminal and, as far as I could tell, dispassionate.
Also: there is some legal scholarship available on the supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment. Look in particular for the ruling, in the 1870's if I recall correctly, that made gun ownership a collective or social right, as opposed to an individual right. The case involved freed former slaves who resorted to firearms to defend themselves from night riders, lynch mobs, the KKK and other murdering racists. Since the southern states could not tolerate this, laws restricting gun ownership were passed and enforced against blacks only. This is the root cause of the legal confusion over the dispute today.
Your attempts to find good data on the internet are not surprising--I have interests that take me back to articles published twenty, thirty and more years ago, and the results of Google searches are dismal, to say the least. Perhaps this tendency to ignore the past, or not archive it properly for search engines, accounts for the fact that no one has mentioned the excellent sources I give you here. You will have to dig. Contact PBS and ask for help getting a copy of the FRONTLINE documentary; they may help you. Good luck, and persist!
We can HAVE debates like this and say that we like the constitution or we don't. I like this, it almost makes me forget all the bullshit in government.
A little boy ran home from school on the first day and pestered his mother into taking him into a toy shop. When they got there he insisted that she buy him a gun. "But why do you need a gun?" asked his mother. "Because teacher told us she was going to teach us to draw tomorrow."
###
Farmer Giles, why do you have two barrels on your shotgun?
So that if I miss the fox with the first I can get him with the other.
Why not fire with the other first, then?
###
Two men were out hunting when one of them saw a rabbit. "Quick," said the first, "shoot it." "I can't," said the second. "My gun isn't loaded." "Well," said the first," you know that, and I know that, but the rabbit doesn't."
1. In 1996, the most comprehensive "gun control" study of all time was published by John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School. Fifteen years of FBI files from all 3,054 counties in our country were analyzed regarding the correlation between the occurrence of violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. Invariably, where responsible, law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms, the rate of violent crime plummeted. The criminals were afraid to attack those who "might" be armed.
2. Professor Gary Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.
[from largo.com]
(From Memory) So I was watching some show on these issues (crime, murder, gun control) and the smart-alek host asks this question "What is the most dangerous place in the world?" He was expecting to provoke a debate among his various and fully-diverse-on-the-issues panel members. But the first person to answer, some retired police chief, stimied the interviewer and managed 100% agreement with the entire panel.
The most dangerous place in the world is... "the secondary crime scene."
Ok, you can't find it on an international map but it is a real, abet highly conceptual, place.
If you are moved from one place to another during the commission of a crime the probability that you will end up dead reaches near certianty. For whatever reason the criminal doesn't want to "do (to) you" whatever he intends while you are all where you are. If someone tries to force you into a car or to walk down a path DON'T DO IT.
To that end, going along with the crime peacfully is asking to be slain. (Ask the French, a policy of appeasment [spelling?] NEVER works.)
Therefore, being armed must increase the victims chance to resist visiting the secondary crime scene, and therefore must tend to keep people alive.
The typical shooting is IMHO an act of cowardess. The random shooters in our lot would't ever decide that a gun show or police convention was "the best possible choice" for a random act of violence. No siree... You want to have a good killin you go to a kindergarden or a MacDonalds or a commuter train or a mall. And not one in Texas or West Virgina.
The odd-but-seemingly-true of the matter is that it isn't the gun control laws that act as a functional component to the crime rate... it's the CARRY LAWS. The easier it is for a person to carry a CONCEALED weapon in a municipality, the less random gun violence takes place. If people have to cary their guns out in the open then an assailant can gage the probability he will take return fire.
Gun Violence is an act of cowardess.
The graphs (of cities etc) from least to most "easy to arrange for concealed carry"; and most to least "likely to have a random shooting"; are essentially the same graph.
Where there are no carry laws, most people don't even (have to) carry because they have the same "protective camoflage" as the little old lady next to them with that hog-leg in her purse.
And so, anything you can do you should do, to keep from being moved or looking like a victim will keep you from that most deadly place. Guns, or just the reasonable probability that a law abiding person might have a gun, are excelent in that reguard. And if you don't have a gun, get a knife, or a stick, or a good kick ready.
And the only solution *REALLY* is to figure out what makes some people need to drag others out into the bushes and do them harm, but barring that unlikely miracle, go armed if you have the mental presence to use it wisely, and don't if you don't.
(I personally don't own a gun, and wouldn't trust myself to carry one around, but I know that I feel more comfortable visiting a place like West Virginia where the law abiding persons are at least as well armed as the kooks, than I feel in LA or New York where only the kooks and bangers are armed.)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Speaking from personal experience, I can think of absolutely no gun-related crime reported here in the last eight years I've lived here. Nor have I heard of any of the "accidents in the home" that gun-control advocates trumpet as a risk of gun ownership.
In the state of Georgia, there are very few barriers to gun ownership. Provided you're not a convicted felon and haven't been in a mental institution recently, you can buy and keep a gun in your home, car, or place of business. If you pay the fee in your county and don't mind being fingerprinted, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere besides a school, church, gov't building or public gathering. What's more, the police are very supportive of personal carry.
Lest you think we have a society of trigger-happy vigilantes, the law does provide some of the stiffest penalties in the nation for crimes committed with firearms, including a mandatory, non-negotiable five-year prison term for any crime committed with a firearm. This is the right kind of gun control: let law-abiding citizens protect themselves while providing stiff penalties for those who break the law.
Do a google search for "Kennesaw gun law," and you'll find the statistics, which pretty much speak for themselves.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
Again, this is a statistic, but what else do we have? I heard that if you have a gun in your house, it is 54% more likely that a family member will get shot than an intruder. Thinking back on my own experiences, this seems about right. My best friend growing up (6yo)picked up a gun at his dad's work and shot and killed his 5yo sister. Just the other day, a friend of mine had some people over to his house and they picked up a loaded gun in his brothers room. It discharged and hit another guy in the leg. Both guns were hunting rifles.
The only case I've ever personally known of a gun being used in self defense was my grandfather shooting at some guy who was stealing his lawn mower. Now, people can say all they want about how the gun owners were neglagent ect ect, but it happens all the time. Maybe we need more training or something, but gun violence is a HUGE problem in this country. More people were shot and killed at home during the vietnam war than in actual battle. Every time I turn on a show like cops it seems there is some drunk person wielding a gun. I don't what the solution is for this country, maybe every citizen should get a standard issue M-16. We would either have complete peace or a war zone.
I thought i would cut through the crap and give you what you want
Australia has been buying back guns in order to try and reduce the number of killings with guns.
There are plenty of sites, especially government ones - here is the first one i came across when i did a quick search-
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html
Q:What's worse tham a cardboard box ? A:Paper tits.
Every citizen should get a standard issue M-16. Then we could put an end to gun violence once and for all.
As an Aussie. I'm glad there exists an America. We need somewhere to keep Americans.
Re the gun issue, it's an old debate but dead simple. Guns are stupid. If you believe otherwise, YOU are stupid. If you believe that getting rid of guns (and the pathetic laws in your constitution that allows them) will not dramatically reduce violent crime, you are also stupid but worse, you are ignorant. Common sense people. Noone has a right to own a gun (or any weapon), what we have a right to is to be responsible in a world that is becoming smaller. So long as America sits on it's porch with a shotgun, the world will deride it. Time to wake up America, and grow up.
Interestingly, few of the posters answered what I read as the critical question.
www.reason.com has many articles over the years (or their print version if you have a library handy). Indeed, if memory serves, sometimes they even had book reviews which focused on this topic.
While Reason, being libertarian oriented, does have a leaning towards "the NRA" in this area, I think their articles actually provided figures and had some logical analysis as well.
knives dont travel at deadly speeds from large distances and in rapid succession. I would much prefer to defend myself against a knife than a gun. Wouldnt you? I think you need to re-evaluate the ignorance that lives in you.
I'll throw two simple facts at you:
1-number of deaths per year involving a gun in the EU: 600
2- same in the US of A: 11.000
Seeing as there are as many (or more) people living in the EU as in the US, draw your own conclusions.
It's not very surprising, though, for anyone with half a brain.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Pretty much every law-enforcement force (sherifs, police, FBI, etc) has access to all the unbiased numbers you would want. And if they don't have them they can tell you where to get the. Interesting but meaningless statistics include:
All of these are essentially meaningless though since at the end of the day, the issue is whether or not you live in a safe society or not. Guns do not change that, the attitudes and values of your society do.
IMHO, the reason America has such a high rate of gun death isn't that it's people have access to guns. It's the detail that it's a big, heavily populated country with a lot of people who are poor, uneducated and put pretty much zero value on the lives of others (and frequently themselves). People who are happy and have a lot to live for are generally less likely to want to engage in gunfights than people who hate the world and assume it hates them back.
All that's going to turn that around any time soon is a spectacular reversal of either human nature or economic practice.
Britian has a similar problem, only in their case all the dregs are compressed into a small island which supports a culture of not getting involved (because you might get hurt). Add to that the average beat cop's most powerful weapon is the baton and being a criminal in Britian doesn't seem like such a bad career option for many.
You don't need no gun control. We need some bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000... Every time somebody get shot, you'd be like, "Dang, he musta did somethin'. Shit, they put $50,000 worth a bullets in his ass!"
and she was born in a bottle-rocket 1929.
How do you know you would only get stabbed once? What if its not just youself at risk, but your family? An intruder in my home has no rights because I don't know what he intends for my family. Because I am not well trained in self-defence, I cannot afford to risk giving an intruder anything but the shortest chance, and only while I am in complete control of the situation. If anything goes wrong - his fault, my fault nobody's fault - better that he dies than my whole family. Of course, it would be his fault anyway for being in my home without my permission.
Please enter tech-topics, else topics related to techies like caffine molecules, dating HOWTOs and pushing Linux in Govts. Please do not post news fit for CNN but not here.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I do realize that this is off-topic, but the conversation has denigrated to interpreting the second amendment - It doesn't need to be interpreted it's all right here in black and white!
...being necessary to the security of a free state...
I believe Webster's Dictionary is usually relied upon for definitions in a court of law.
Amendment II
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.
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "militia"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Militia \Mi*li"tia\, n. [L., military service, soldiery, fr. miles, militis, soldier: cf. F. milice.] 1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
The king's captains and soldiers fight his battles, and yet . . . the power of the militia is he. --Jer. Taylor.
2. Military service; warfare. [Obs.] --Baxter.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
militia n : civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army [syn: {reserves}]
...specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
WOW! This sounds a lot like anyone who has registered for the draft.
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "regulated"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Regulate \Reg"u*late\ (-l[=a]t), v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Regulated} (-l[=a]`t[e^]d); p. pr. & vb. n. {Regulating}.] [L. regulatus, p. p. of regulare, fr. regula. See {Regular}.] 1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.
The laws which regulate the successions of the seasons. --Macaulay.
The herdsmen near the frontier adjudicated their own disputes, and regulated their own police. --Bancroft.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition; as, to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc.
{To regulate a watch} or {clock}, to adjust its rate of running so that it will keep approximately standard time.
Syn: To adjust; dispose; methodize; arrange; direct; order; rule; govern.
3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition...
WOW! This is what regulated means - to know how to use said arms
And to the person a few posts back who stated that now that we have a standing army it nullifies the second amendment - what planet are you from? The only circumstance that can change the second amendment would be its repeal. And what's this about the status quo (the way things are and have been) that tries to make it sound as if that is not what was intended - which if you read above - it was.
Sometimes not having a college education is good - many who do, think they know better than everyone else once infected with the liberalism bacteria.
I really never thought I'd be saying *anything* like this, ever, but having recently been the target of a breaking-and-entering that was foiled when a certain geek (me) with an air rifle threatened consequences, I'm glad that piece of equipment was in my house. My roommate wasn't home that night, and I have no idea what *might* have happened, had I not been able to scare the intruder away. First person experience can change one's entire outlook.
--
* Helen *
Actually, all death can be attributed to lack of oxygen to the brain...
Maybe we should give everyone their own pocket photon torpedo for their own personal saftey.
Honestly folks, it's really F = dp/dt that kills, along with an accounting for friction. You need a change in momentum to impart the force and to carry out the transfer of energy and the conversion of the energy into heat contributes a great deal as well.
Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
Read Jon Lott's, More Guns, Less Crime...
I do everything the voices in my head tell me to...
Compromise... what an interesting word. Imagine a world where both sides compromised. Not just the NRA compromising to the gun control folks... but true two-way compromise.
This would be a world where, provided I'm willing to fill out the paperwork and pay the license fees, I could legally commute to work in a WW2 surplus tank, supplied with 'live' shells, a 45 on each hip in tactical holsters, and an MP5 (folding stock) or Mossberg 500 slung across my back. Not only to work, but also to buy my groceries as well.
On the other hand, I would be happy if California would simply allow me to fill out paperwork and registration and such, as a private citizen, to own a high capacity magazine and a submachine gun. On a side note, I own a Desert Eagle... yes, Californians, you can legally buy a DE if configured as a 44 magnum - switching barrel configuration is a snap, and there is no difference between a DE44 and a DE50 other than which interchangeable barrel and magazine are in use.
With regards to intruders, I'd observe that there's a reason for high-capacity semi-automatic handguns, summed up two words: warning shots. Since I have a 10-round magazine - I *might* consider a warning shot instead of center-of-mass on the first shot. If I had a 16-round magazine, of course I wouldn't mind 'wasting' one. I might even choose a 40-cal or 9mm weapon because my carrying capacity isn't as limited.
Lastly, semi-automatic rifles have a very important place in hunting. That animal writhing in mortal agony from your first shot would really, really appreciate your not wasting 15 seconds breech-loading for a mercy shot with cold-numbed fingers. The ability to deliver another follow-on shot with minimal delay is a necessity in a humane hunting environment.
Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
This is an issue that is clouded by emotion, poorly drawn conclusions, political idealism and misunderstanding of social dynamics. It CAN however be boiled down to a VERY simple decision, the value that you as an individual place on your rights. Firearm ownership is a right, just like the freedom of speech, and even more important. If you are more concerned about saftey and would support the suspension/removal of your rights by the governing body, then you can be pro-gun control. If you value your rights and think that things like the Total information awareness are foothold towards the revocation of your rightsm you probabally want to consider sticking up for yourself and your right to own a firearm. Tendencies toward violence and societal issue relating to a homocide culture are not the same, nor even a related issue. The effectiveness of the regulations on murder rates is not the issue. It really is just this simple. Rights VS security.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I'd much rather be shot than have a catapault or some other pre-gun weapon fired at me like at the beginning of Gladiator. Bullet = quick Flaming rocks, flying spears, rusty swords = OUCH. Matches cause arson btw.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
No, seriously, too much oxygen is just as fatal as too little. Ask a diver.
In 2 of Americaz Most Wanted, the popular Snoop/Tupac duet, Snoop specifically says "yeah we live by da gun so we die by da gun." This was before his manslaughter conviction for when his bodyguard, Malik Lee, shot a guy at an L.A. park. How do you think Snoop felt after going to prison for 3 years? It shows in his music. This is in stark contrast to 2Pac's frequent references to rolling with his glock (carrying concealed), which his biographer in Tupac Shakur says that he did 24x7x365 except when he was in church. And look, 2Pac is dead and Snoop lives. Ever heard "Gin & Juice" or "Bitch Please part II?" All Snoop does is drink booze and mack bitches.
The other thing I don't understand is that necessity to own a gun. I've heard many "I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns". Now, what if there are no guns? Suddenly, you don't need a gun to protect yourself.
The problem is that if you outlaw guns then the law abiding honest people will just be unarmed while the criminals will still have their guns.
I believe that the solution to the violence in our society is many times more complex than just taking guns away from people. We need to change our media around so that it stops glorifying violence. Sexual repression is also often a cause of great eruptions of violence; so we should show pr0n on daytime t.v., violence would noticably drop.
Except that most people haven't been trained to kill with their fists or with spoons, so explosive violence that isn't abetted by a gun tends not to be as deadly.
I'm sure that that premeditated murders are just about as common, but that's a smaller chunk of the total.
Every state has already some level of control over guns. I have the feeling however that they do not share a lot of the information they have in their databases. Maybe one of the issues is lacking of standards on the way this data is collected and stored. US already has a huge central database containing the fingerprints of all criminals in the country. Why not do the same with guns? Every gun has a unique fingerprint that is scratched in the projectile when it is fired. Why not creating a database with the fingerprint of all the guns before they are sold? This way, any projectile that is found in a body could be linked to a particular serial number and maybe traced back to the owner (or at least give some clue to the police).
I am afraid however that such a system would only work if all the manufactures were participating. Otherwise, it would be always possible to find guns in the black market that had not been inserted in the system yet....
I also have a good use for my guns: Putting food on the table.
.270, my Marlin .22WMR, my Mossberg 12 ga, or my Traditions .50 cal to shoot another man, self defence or homicide, but i do know how to use every one of them (and many more) properly, and fire them accurately within their respective ranges.
I know i can just go to the grocery store, or just to the barn (god, living on a farm rules!) and either buy or kill one of my own cows, but that isn't venison, or grouse, or wild turkey (very different) or squirrel, or woodchuck (yes, it's edible), or duck, or goose (also different than their commercial equivalents).
The only way I can have any of those succulent meats is to go out, track one down (or happen across one, like I did Saturday to a whitetail doe) and pull the trigger.
I do not have delusions of using my Ruger
In my book, i have a very good use for my guns, and you WILL have to pry them from my cold dead hands if you want to take them away (albeit i'll probably be trying to use them one last time before they're confiscated, die in the forest in some tragic accident, and won't have to fire a single shot in anger.)
mechanicos ergo cogito
Guns don't kill people... I kill people!
Thousands of US citizens have such guns. There was only one psychopath with such a gun. There was only one string of murders. Now tell me, are the guns causing the killings, or is the psychopath responsible?
One day, I wanted to die. More exactly, one day, during a few minutes I would do anything to die. I swallowed all the pills I could take. Effect : 10 minutes later I was unconscious. Fortunately I was discovered and driven to hospital.
If I had a gun, I wouldn't be writing this.
As an NRA member, you've probably already gotten information on John Lott's study published in 2000 entitled "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws." He tries to be as unbiased as possible, but he uses statistics very effectively and lets the numbers speak for themeselves. In states where "concealed carry" laws exist, gun violence is dramatically lower. His assumption is that in such states where citizens can and do carry concealed firearms, an armed criminal is less likely to risk his own life by assaulting a potentially armed victim or breaking into a residence where a gun might be used against him. The numbers gleaned from police reports suggest that in many cases, just revealing a previously concealed weapon was enough to discourage attacks without even a single warning shot being fired. While the NRA may grumble about gun registration laws, the statistics that such laws allow us to compile provide lots of ammunition, er, I mean, data to support the NRA's positions. Just by doing a state-by-state comparison of the numbers of registered gun owners with the numbers of crimes in which guns were used by criminals in those states indicates pretty convincingly that when you have more private gun owners, you have less gun violence.
Don't take my word for it. Check out the book and draw your own conclusions. I think it comes closest to answering your query about an "unbiased" analysis of this issue.
One day, I wanted to die. More exactly, one day, during a few minutes I would do anything to die. I swallowed all the pills I could take. Effect : 10 minutes later I was unconscious. Fortunately I was discovered and driven to hospital.
If I had a gun, I wouldn't be writing this.
>Hell, I even have 2 handguns that I can put 5 (or 6) rounds into a 4 inch circle at 100 yards..and one of those is actualy good for the same 2 inch circle as my rifles.
... no way.
I call bullshit. Five rounds into a 4" circle at a full football field's length - no way. I shoot pistols (shotguns too, a few rifles in my day also) and even my Glock 20 (10mm) with a laser is doing good to put 5 rounds into a 4" circle at 100 FEET. As as for a 2 inch group at 100 yards from a pistol - you are good, but not THAT good.
100 feet I can believe. A 97 yard touchdown with a pistol
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
embarrassingly thin troll
The straw in that strawman is wet.
Well, if you had a gun would you be able to rest assured you'd NEVER get mugged by an unlicensed, gun-toting, homical maniac?
Nope.
A gun isn't bulletproof dermal plating - a guy with a gun can get shot just as dead as a guy without a gun. Sometimes the guy with the gun can shoot back, and sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes not. If the guy with the gun shooting back knows how to hit the broadside of a barn, the changes of it being a good thing are somewhat better.
The question isn't whether there are some examples of cases where this wouldn't work. The question is whether more stringent firearms licensing would, in the aggregate, lead to more safety. I think it would. And in a much more second-amendemnent friendly way than say, banning all handguns.
My video compression blog
I grew up knowing nothing about guns, because they simply "don't exist" in PR. Gun control is tremendously strict, and mere mortals aren't allowed to own them.
So why do all the houses have bars on the windows? Why is the murder rate higher than Detroit's? Why have friends of mine been mugged -- some killed in the process? Why did the PR legislature pass a law explicitly allowing you to run red lights after midnight to try to protect yourself against carjackings?
It wasn't until I came to the US that I understood, and even then it took me a while. Criminals will get guns, regardless of the law. If they can get guns in PR (100x35 miles of border to patrol), and nowadays in the UK, how can we pretend that the criminals will ever be disarmed in the US?
I now live in the most heavily armed county in New Mexico, Los Alamos. Guess what? The biggest crime spree in the last year was just stopped -- some kids were stealing CDs from cars, which most people leave unlocked. This made front-page news in our paper.
There are precious few home invasions here -- criminals are cowards, and strongly prefer doing their crimes where people don't shoot at them. I've never heard of a mugging here. They sometimes happen in Santa Fe or Albuquerque, but not infrequently the criminal ends up dead.
No, it's not the Wild West. It's remarkable how civilized we are when we know that everyone is armed. Heinlein said it well: "An armed society is a polite society". And it's not fear that keeps us polite -- it's responsibility.
I hope never to use my weapons against another person... but if anyone ever presents a threat against me or my loved ones, I will not hesitate. And I will never give up my freedom to defend myself.
Gun Control is an innovative concept. I think we should also institute Crowbar Control to prevent burglars from breaking into houses. Oh, let's also have Hand Control (Cut off people's hands) to keep people from breaking into houses. While we're at it, let's have Car Control to keep people from doing hit-and-runs.
Because the tool creates the motivation. It's never the person using the tool who's the pissed-off punk who pulls the trigger and kills someone. No, the gun jumped out of the punk's underwear drawer and leaped in his hands, and as Madriker in the Legend of Eldean, motivated the punk to do his evil deed. Hell, we can't even prosecute him, he was merely being used by the gun! He's as much a victim as the girl whose family now has to live without their daughter.
I think people who are for Gun Control are on the same level as the DRM-and "trusted computing-pushers. Because they try to eliminate the tools of freedom (Yeah, I said it. The Colonists of the US and the peasants of the French didn't launch revolutions by slapping their oppressors with fish) because they MIGHT be used by their owners for illegal things.
A hearty F-U to anyone who automatically assumes I'm a criminal because I own a gun, and double it to the same m0f0 who thinks I'm a criminal for having MP3's.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
How about this statistic :
Number of people killed PER legally owned civilian firearm.
The numbers? Hell I dunno, I could pull em out of my ass just like Mac did, or I can ask that somebody look it up. But since none of the guns in the EU are legally owned by citizens I would say that this way of looking at the data would be AMAZINGLY against the EU.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
1. Patriotic duty - should the US want me to go shoot at people, a month or two in boot camp isn't going to stack up to a few years' worth of firearms practice, and I owe it to the US to be prepared in advance.
2. Self interest. Hey, let's face it - if I stand a risk of being sent into a war zone, it serves my own best interests to have learned so thoroughly how to use a gun, that I'm less likely to forget it the second enemy fire comes in overhead. Not to mention, the extra time and attention I give to detail on the shooting range would translate to better performance in real combat, vs enemies of the State. That translates to enemy lives lost, my and my fellow draftees' lives saved.
Before you begin attacking this viewpoint... if you're eligible for the draft, I'd like you to consider, were you to be summoned for military service, whether you'd rather have someone like me next to you in a foxhole, or someone who feels guns should be banned and has never touched one of the 'filthy things' in his life prior to inductment. I personally think you'd rather have someone next to you with less baggage to keep him from pulling the trigger when it comes down to a choice between your life, and that of the enemy infantry.
In the original sense of the word, folks like me are probably what the founding fathers meant by militia.
As an Aussie, you should thank us Americans for being here to provide the freedom measuring stick for the world. Undoubtedly, as soon as your piffly little country gets a little older, it will become almost as free as America.
Btw, if you try to break into my house, you're going to get shot. That goes for anybody else who tries to break into my house, too. My guns give me what's called a ``fighting chance'' against anyone who might try to kill me, whether they're trying to steal from me, or whether they're trying to kill me because I'm an American. You Australians don't really have that. You couldn't even hunt for food if you had to, much less if you wanted to. On a country scale, you'd have to depend on your betters to defend you should anyone attack you.
I pity you. Your only line of defense is to sit in a corner and mewl until someone with an actual military comes to bail you out.
I'd like to ask to those who want to protect themselves with guns how the guns they carry could protect children from being shoot and how they would protect themselves from the sniper in Washington.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
As for dioxin, a toxic chemical: "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash" -Regulation, Vol.16, no.1, Fall 1993. Reported here.
Might one assume that if he thinks a rash is worse than cancer, his judgement of the risks of guns might be a bit non-standard?
That being said, I agree that concealed carry laws reduce some crimes, esp. mugging & street crimes. Its the short fused guy with too many coffees and a hangover, who rear-ends me in his SUV and blames me for being in front of him, that I worry about having a
If you believe that getting rid of guns (and the pathetic laws in your constitution that allows them) will not dramatically reduce violent crime, you are also stupid but worse, you are ignorant.
Define "dramatically". Jackasses without guns can commit just as many violent crimes as Jackasses with guns. Gun bans would yield a slight percentage drop in violent crime. However, in the USA even a slight percentage drop in violent crime is a big honkin' number. What will result from a sudden lack of guns in the USA is this:
1) Honest people (i.e. not murderers) who used to have guns would get pissed. This is merely an annoyance.
2) Kooks in militias will finally have a reason to instigate violence against local law enforcement, ATF, & the FBI instead of playing army boy all day in a camp in Montana.
3) And most importantly: The survival rate of violent crimes will immediately be a great deal higher. All right-thinking people will agree that this is a good thing.
Unfortunately we'll still have the same jerks running around trying to kill each other for the money in the cash register/for the wallets of pedestrians/for their next hit of (fill in favorite narcotic here)/for being mean to them in school/whatever.
Guns are bad for humanity. Humans are worse. But humans without weapons are far less lethal than humans with them.
The point is that trying to fix a broken society by taking away their toys is a half-assed attempt. It won't fix the problem it will only make the problem a little more palatable in the short run.
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
Would you rather defend your child or wife against a gun or a knife? Are you going to let him/her die just because you don't think you need a gun?
[Pre-Note: I do not now, nor have I ever, owned a firearm. I have, however, bothered to go out and be taught at least the first things you must know to be an "informed" participant in the debate. That is; how to handle, load, and shoot a gun; what is involved in their maintenance and upkeep; how easy/hard it is to "safely" store an handle a gun; and so on. This also includes the reasonably unbiased political history of the issue (e.g. I paid attention in junior/senior high school social studies, and took the time to read on the subject... 8-)]
Your nice and over-broad statistics not withstanding, with respect to children killed in gun accidents (though I wish I could cite this better), my understanding is that there is another more important correlation.
In cultural settings where the child is raised with guns (taken hunting, taught to respect the weapon, allowd supervised access to the weapon if he/she asks) the incidence of accidental gun deaths/shootings of/by children is hugely reduced (e.g. near zero).
What is the classic scenerio?
Child 1: "hey dude, my dad has a gun and I know where it is... want to see?"
If Child 2 then says "so what, my dad takes me shooting" child one never gets to the "whoops, sorry I killed you dude" phase.
If Child 1 doesn't think the gun is a forbidden mistery it stops being an attractive nusance.
Hell, if you wan't to keep kids alive, make the gun into a chore. You know, "no jimmy, you have to come to the range, do your target practice, clean your gun, and put it away before you can play with timmy from next door." You wouldn't be able to drive the kids to the guns with sticks.
In simple point of fact, virtually all gun accidents involve improperly trained or otherwise clueless people. And most people with an "anti-gun" bias have never even bothered to learn about them.
Incidents are most likely to occur in a house where it (the gun) is "the first gun I have ever owned" or was bought "because I was mugged last year" and where "I've never fired one before" or "I shot it once on the range when I bough it."
On the other hand, the acutal "crime prevention" statistics are virtually non-existant. How many times is a gun "brandished" (brought out or otherwise made known to a criminal but never fired) each year? Nobody knows. Even the simple "I heard someone in the house and I yelled 'I have a gun'" incidents arn't statistically correlated out of police reports.
Guns are very good at wounding and killing people. That's what they are for and that isn't something to be ashamed of. When a gun is fired there is a high incidence of someone or something being struck by a bullett. But untill and unless you can compile statistics about the number of times a gun was "used" without being fired, you can't construct any statistically or culturally valid statemets that meaningfully compare the "cost of having them" in lives and property loss, to the "cost of not having them" in lives and property saved.
So your numbers, like virtually all the numbers in the debate, are ad homonym, and uselessly incomplete.
And ALL OF THAT ignores the reason we have the "keep and bare arms" provisions. If you go back to your bare-bones public-school education, you will recall that the intent of the provision is that any one member of a society should have the right to be at least as well armed as any one member of their own government. The British took the guns away from the colonists so that the occupying force could dominate the will of the citizenry.
It is quite the point that the average citizen *MUST* be at least as well armed as the police to keep the police from becomming an occupying force.
The thing that has been lost is that the citizenry were also supposed to be trained, willing, and ready to assist the police (every citizen is in the militia etc) if/as/when needed. It's part of that all-rights no-responsibilities thing that is rotting the western world at its core.
Remember, conversly, that in the age of the authoring of the constitution, gun-control was automatic. (Hua? you may ask...) Because of the quality of materials available at the time, if you didn't care for your gun regularly and know how it was operated, it would become useless and dangerous to you in a matter of days or weeks. If the average gang-banger had to clean his gun every three days whether he fired it or not, do you think he would want to own it, let alone shove it hurridly down his pants?
Modern guns are really the problem they are now because you can hammer a tent peg into the ground with one, have it get rained on, drop it in the mud, and still know that you can whipe it off and expect it to fire instead of blowing your hand off.
Further, there is the issue of "rights" in the (USA biased here) core social conscience. The idea that a right is absolute is, well, absolute nonsense. In any debate where the word "right" is used, the heat totally out-musters the light. You have the right to smoke, I have the right not to be forced to breathe your smoke. I have the right to keep and bare arms, you have the right NOT TO BE GUNNED DOWN OUTSIDE THE LOCAL CIRCLE-K (sothern areas all-night grocery and sundries chain-store). Rights, priviliges, and responsibilities all exist in a hierarchy and, without exception, the "right to" something is trumped by the "right not to have done to", but only so far as do-er and the do-ee are interracting. So the right not to be gunned down in turn, doesn't anywhere become the right to exist in a world restructured to remove the possibility of everything you fear or dislike comming anywhere near you.
The guns are in the equation now, and trying to get them out needs must fail.
Drugs are in the equation now, and trying to get them out needs must fail.
And so on for religous wackos, our-truth-only christians and Xenutologists, leftist extremeists, secular humanists, racists, vegans, confectioners.
You can't take pee out of a pool.
You can't legislate morallity.
You can't legislate intellegence either.
You can only find out what is wrong, what is breaking the minds of the people and turning them to animals, and then try to act intelligently and proactively.
No Apeasement (sp?).
No Reactionary diatribe.
No Crufty Science.
No Return to the Golden-Age dogma.
No Absolute Moral Truth.
Only people trying to think and reason honestly and completely.
It's a lot to think about...
And (reguardless of topic) when you see or hear someone who shows no signs of that requisite minimum thought, you should discard their statements as pre-opinionated dogma.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
In other words, guns are much more dangerous when concentrated in the hands of a government then in the hands of a free people.
That was yesterday. Today the government is always way better armed than civilians. Most recent (successful) revolutions have been done peacefully (like in Eastern Germany) - where as armed conflicts between government and civilians always resorted in lengthy and tragic civil wars. And look to America, where civic freedom has once again reached an alltime low and nobody would DREAM to do anything about it! That's of course because armed opposition would be most inappropriate and - more importantly - propaganda and fear proves to be the governments most effective weapons to control the public.
The time for guns as a means of political communication is over folks! Yet somehow some people live in the illusion that as long as they have a weapon it automatically means they are free...
And obviously you are one of those gun-toting chain smoking cretins that I subsidize with my hard-earned money (although I expect your 'mobile sin' is an SUV rather than a sports car.)
If there are so "many" reports that show the inverse correlation (and aren't funded by a gun lobby), then why didn't you offer them up? I offer you a choice tidbit from the second source I cited:
"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
Yes, it's 'only' correlation, but who fucking cares? - Not my insurance company. If I park downtown where cars get stolen, they make me pay extra. No causation there...
I also pay extra for your bad judgement in bringing a gun into your home. I don't care what you do - just don't make me pay for your narrow-minded testosterone-poisoned belief system. Jesus, if you want to fuck up, do some Oxy-Contin - or buy a super-bike and ride without a helmet. The 'correlation' between you leaving this planet quickly with little or no additional cost to my wallet is somewhat higher than with your possesion of a firearm.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Since the 15th century there has been what is known as a "duty to retreat" in England. The principle states that it is better to retreat from a potentially violent situation and have one's pride injured than to physically injure the other person. Unfortunately, this means that even if you are a victim of robbery, you have a duty to attempt to escape from the robber instead of trying to fight him. If you kill a robber or burglar in "self-defense" in England, you are charged with murder if you didn't retreat "at least to the wall at one's back." There used to be a "castle exception" to the retreat rule in England that states that a homeowner need not retreat when attacked in his own residence, but there now is no castle exception in England. This is evidenced by the total prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons in England in 1953. Offensive meaning the opposite of defensive. This includes practically anything, certainly a pocketknife, dirk, or dagger, truncheon, axe, tomahawk, etc. England does not condone the use of weapons to ward off attackers. Therefore, anyone who carries a concealed pistol or revolver is certainly not justified in brandishing or shooting someone who robs him in England.
In this great country of ours (USA), there is no duty to retreat in most jurisdictions. However, some jurisdictions, notably some New England states, do require retreat when possible and retain the castle exception. One example of a very violence-friendly law is California, which states that deadly force may be used in defense of oneself or others anywhere, at anytime, when the victim reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of any violent felony by the perpetrator. In practice, this may prevent criminals from robbing people as they know they could be shot and killed legally. Certainly this suggests that the "wave of violent crime" in the UK is not the result of a gun ban, but is partially the result of a centuries-old rule that favors violent criminals.
What people should be saying is that there is a public policy interest in not having a retreat rule and in not prosecuting people who kill in self-defense, so that criminals will actually be afraid of getting hurt when they rob people. Make sense?
Whoever thought of posting such a knee-jerk hotspot topic on Slashdot, qualified by "just the facts" is smoking something that I'd really like to get my hands on!
C'mon! We're all geeks and socialists! How do you ever expect to read anything of value at the incredibly low SNR you'll find amongst the comments here? Especially on this topic!?!
In everything, for some reason, there must be a struggle of some sort. One of the biggest scabs you can open, aside from "abortion rights", is the right to keep and bear arms. If you try to disarm the people, the people may very well disarm you.
But that is the beauty of it all. Even though the United States Government is the most technologically advanced and organized body in the world, our principles are held together tightly by a simple piece of paper. Our forefathers must have held the right to keep and bear arms very dear and close, since they incorporated it the Second Amendment. Because they were persecuted themselves, they made the first Free Speech, and the second the right to keep and bear arms.
That is about all the "evidence" I require for my argument. I believe in the Constitution, and anyone who tries to take our rights, guaranteed by that document, should be dealt with in a just manner. We cannot allow anyone to take away our rights, for any reason. We must stay vigilant.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
That is my rant. I welcome yours.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
I don't automatically assume you're a criminla. Just an ignorant moron.
The most important difference here is that, unlike guns, P2P can't be used to kill people.
dram
Mandatory gun registration makes it easy to prove that the guns are stolen (and get them back to their rightful owners, too!)
I really can't understand why any person would want to own a gun or carry a gun, except maybe for hunting or sports.
The idea of people carrying leathal weapons to me is just scary, since I don't want people to have the opportunity to shoot at will.
Maybe the rate of homicide don't drop if we ban guns, but my guess is that it won't go up either. Why provide potentially insane or unstable people with yet another tool for inflicing damage onto other (or themselves).
In Sweden where I live it was rare even for the police to use their service weapons for a very long time, the idea being to not raise the level of violence (and starting a arms-race with criminals).
If I had some spare money I'd rather buy a guitar than a gun...
"when life gets complicated, I like to take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner" - Hobbes.
You really need to get over these conspiracy theory justifications. Absolute bollocks. Many wealthy, democratic nations around the world have strict gun control and very low crime and murder. You should have the brains to see the association.
Look, I'm not *advocating* that anybody go shoot Ashcroft or Poindexter, and Ashcroft even seems to get along well with the NRA. Nor do I own guns. This is a discussion about political theory, and they're some of the most recent examples of the types of people that the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, just as they are recent examples of the types of people the authors had in mind when they wrote the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, and Disgraced Ex-Admiral Poindexter and his henchperson Ollie North are examples of the type of person the authors of the Uniform Code of Military Justice had in mind when they wrote the part *requiring* US military personnel to disobey illegal orders.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Here is my overall assessment based on years of observation:
Gun control doesn't seem to be particularly helpful, nor particularly harmful. Sadly, I think the main effect of gun control laws is to make certain people feel better, which isn't an intrinsically bad reason to pass them. There might be a few cases where gun control has prevented harm (which might be reason enough to pass them), but its predominant effect is to promote law-avoidance tactics, such as the development of a black market or travelling across state lines to purchase them.
I don't have a solid explanation for why America has such a high ratio of gun violence to gun ownership. I suspect that it's mainly related to the cultural decay that has occurred in certain sectors of American society -- which means that it will be extremely difficult to remedy.
Technology will cause us to enforce stricter and stricter gun controls. Why? Does anyone in this crowd think that technology is going to stop? That it's slowing down even? What about a gun that was designed with better technology? Do you think that's not on the drawing boards, or at least in some gun-geeks mind?
How about a gun with a flip up LCD screen, and push buttons to select the right target? What about small, self sterring bullets? Take a giant leap ahead and start dealing with anti-matter, and see where we can go with this.
Sooner or later, we either learn to live with one another, or just one person will be able to take out a whole stadium, rather than just a few kids at school.
The problem with citing a particular study is that whatever conclusion the study comes to, the other side assumes that it is an indication of bias. The mere fact of concluding guns are beneficial indicates to a gun controller bias, the conclusion is evidence enough. The same is true all to often of gun advocates when judging pro gun control studies. This is horrible science but great politics.
The study by Professor Gary Kleck, Criminology professor of the Florida State Univeristy, called "Point Blank: Guns in America" concludes that gun control is extremely detrimental to the health and safety of the nation. This despite the aleged fact that Kleck originally set out writing the book to prove the opposite.
(The conclusion is based on the fact that the benefit of defensive gun use in preventing violence greatly outweighs the cost of gun violence.)
That is about the best you can do, it is such a hot button topic that any other study will be immediately accused of bias (as this one will undoubtedly be.) The reality though is that Kleck and another study "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott are together the most comprehensive studies of the subject available today.
Call them biased if you like, but the reality is that they studied many, many more people and crimes that then very weak and selective studies done by the gun control advocates. (This is objectively true, but I am sure many will see it as an indication of my bias.)
Statistics is not a science that the average man in the street can readily judge, certainly not in sound bites. Tiny details matter a great deal (sample size, sample randomness, manner of posing question etc.) and analysis of statistics is something that takes time and reflection, not "fox news phone poll - results after these messages from our sponsors."
The trite posting of "margin of error +/- 3%" in tiny type hardly captures the nuances of true statistical analysis.
The Department of Justice has gun crime data at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm which might be good to combine with the CDC data.
Okay, this is a little bit offtopic but here it is anyway.
In Canada, the gun registry system was supposed to cost only 2 million dollars, because gun owners were suposed to pay 30$/year for their permit. After three years, it has cost 600 millions and not even all guns have been registered.
At 2 millions dollars the lifes_saved:dollars ratio was pretty high, but at 600 millions (and counting), it would have been better to invest it in hospitals or something like that...
Ref: http://cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/12/03/auditor0212 03
GFK's
Yeah, how about Great Britain's amazingly low crime rate?
Switzerland's crime rate is sky high due to the proliferation of firearms there, too! What a bunch of brainless morons, right?
First, I'm not clear on what you mean by "protect children from being shoot"? Do you mean preventing accidental shootings? Or do you mean preventing kids from shooting other kids?
The answer to both is similar. Both come down to training and responsibility. I grew up in a house filled with guns. However, all but 1 were locked up in a gun cabinet without ammo. The ammo was stored elsewhere also in a locked cabinet. So I couldn't very well shoot myself. I'd be more likely to hurt myself climbing a tree. But my parents did more than just lock up the ammo and firearms. They also taught me a deep respect for guns. Guns are capable of killing, as that is undeniably one of their primary purposes (that's not to say they can't be used for sport and some are designed specifically for that). This meant that I was taught from an early age that one never points a gun at something unless you are willing to kill it. That includes realizing what is beyond your target if you miss. This also means I didn't ever get to go running around the house pointing guns at my friends, even if they were play guns and colored orange. A gun is a gun, whether made of plastic, or the real thing, they were only to be shown respect in my household. My dad was very strict in enforcing this idea and for that I thank him. Part of owning a gun is respecting them as well. If I ever need to use a gun in defense of myself, I fully realize that the one I am shooting at very likely may die. I intend to maim, but if that is not an option, I will reluctantly kill.
Secondly, as for the sniper. Firearms are not a cure all, solve all defense (just as nuclear weapons are not a cure all, solve all defense). However, as pointed out in previous posts, many times just the knowledge that others in the area may be carrying firearms will prevent a crime from occurring. Or perhaps you meant that if we banned firearms, the sniper wouldn't have been able to obtain one? I'm afraid that I don't have any evidence off-hand to back this up, but I think more stolen and otherwise illegally obtained firearms are used in crimes than legally owned firearms.
And again, it comes down to the benefits and disadvantages. The founders of this nation believed that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, and I for one feel the same. For instance, sometimes riots break out from peaceful demonstrations, yet no one bans the peaceful demonstrations.
Stop screwing around and get back to coding! Your opinion does *not* matter.
Hahahaha. You really need to get over your self importance pal. I cherish all our nation's relationships. But a good relationship allows healthy criticism. Or are your thousands of murders a year in America something you're proud of and willing to defend against criticism. Wanker.
And if it wasn't for Australia you people would be eating sushi and saying sayonara. We defended our nation without your help, dickhead. You people can't even defend yourslef from attack by a small group of arabs. Australia is by far the superior military power in the region, and per capita has the most technical defense power in Asia. Dumb fuck. Sit back in your CNN recliner and watch the world through ignorant American eyes and you end up with dimwits like you. The majority of your population would not even know what the Capital of Canada is.
BTW, If you think burglary should be punished with a bullet, you need to get your head out of your arse and start pretending to be a human.
I highly recommend the books;
"The Ten Things you can't say in America" by Larry Elder
"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" by John R., Jr. Lott
Words have caused more murders than guns, but I certainly would never advicate repealing the 1st amendment just because it provides a 'dangerous margin of freedom'.
We are NOT a Democracy, we are a REPUBLIC, where the rights of the minority are protected from the predations of the majority. Long live our Constitution!
Quote: ... of firearms except for those used by police and army.
Presuming you were raised in the USA, I must also persume that you didn't pay one single whit of attention in your public school education.
The singular and only reason that the Constitution of the United States contains a provision to allow for the ownership and excercise of arms is that the framers knew that ANY ONE CITIZEN must have the right to be AT LEAST as well armed as ANY ONE MEMBER of their own government. (That is exactly and percisely the POLICE and the ARMY.)
In short, the citizenry of a free country must have the means to OPPOSE THE POLICE of their own government to keep those police from evolving into an occupying force.
Remember the abbuses of the British forces occupying the settlments in the colonies and compare those to the elements of the bill of rights.
Freedom of the press, because the Red Coats closed the decenting newspapers.
Freedom of assembly because the Red Coats dispersed crowds in an attempt to quell desent.
Freedom from search and seizure because they were breaking into homes and taking whatever the chose as evidence from whoever they suspected of crimes (fishing through communities for disidents)
See how there is a patern emerging?
The constitution give me the right to keep and bare arms, along with my neighbors, spesifically so that if enough of us decide the government is getting out of hand, we will have the recourse of the revolutionary.
In short, I am SUPPOSED to be able to outgun the police, and "crime" and "self protection" have nothing to do with it at all. Period.
The Bill of Rights is singularly and wholly the Right to Restraint over and Revolution against the government should it get out of line.
Period.
Nothing Else.
No hunting.
No (individual) home intrustion countermeasures.
No shouting fire in a crouded theater.
Only the police and army armed? The founding fathers would turn over in their graves.
Try actually reading a highschool civics book.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
In 2000, there were 16,653 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 32 minutes (source).
Should we ban alcohol? Or cars?
Yes, I forgot why Australia's gun laws are so strong. We have laws against felons owning guns, too.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
There is a social stigma associated with owning a handgun up here that seems totally absent in the States.
A stigma not unlike using cigarettes, facial surgery, or any number of life's little pleasures? Making something unpopular in the latest public opinion poll seems to be the first step, and the least rational one, to making a hobby/luxury so overtaxed or restricted that it becomes unviable. Take a look at the frivolous lawsuits against gun companies for making guns that kill. They make a lawful product with the appropriate warnings and manuals. After that, you're on your own. It's not their fault if someone illegally gives a shotgun to a drug dealer who kills someone with it, it's just people looking for deep pockets and quick cash who know they'll get a settlement offer without so much as a valid claim. The Brady campaign's strategy is to make gun ownership unpopular, fringe, or somehow not "mainstream." And they've gone a long way toward this goal, believe me. Anyone who lives in California knows what I'm talking about. A policy argument against guns, not an emotional appeal, is what you need.
Assuming I have a 9 bullet handgun I can kill 9 people from a reasonable distance before anyone can do much about it.
Always with this argument. Except that anybody who is intending on killing lots of people will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, or some explosives, or poisons. Making enough explosives to kill a lot of people is trivial. Most murders are personal, they have a reason, there's one or two victims, and they're just as likely to happen with a knife or a hammer as they are with a gun. The difference is, there'll be no gun for joe six-pack to stop somebody from busting into his house, taking his possesions and having his way with his daughter.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Britain and switzerland have basically a zero murder rate by guns. How many deths by guns in America? You do the maths.
How many crimes are stopped each year without the gun ever being fired?
Hom many crimes are commited each year without the gun ever being fired?
Until someone bothers to find and correlate those tow numbers there is no truth to any of the numbers for or agains guns.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Partly true, but what would robbers do if they *knew* that *every* house, car, and person was armed? Probably look for a new line of work.
I said 'partly' because guns are different from cameras. Both have a deterrent value, yes, but if someone breaks into your house, what does a camera do? It lets you record the robbery (or rape, or murder, or both; of course, that depends on them not stealing the tapes) and possibly use that as evidence. Result: the crime still happened. A gun, on the other hand, is *still* useful even if someone *does* decide to commit the crime. If someone decides to ignore a camera and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, he'll probably get away with it. If someone decides to ignore a gun and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, you stnad a much better chance.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Being the son of a self proclaimed gun-nut, I have been informed of the situation (willingly or not...). Here's my medilogical point of view:
Why guns can not be regulated any more then they are now:
1) If you have ever been to jail, you can not own a gun.
2) If you want a gun (namely a pistol) in some states you have to wait up to three days, or even more (depending on the state you live in), just to get it.
3) Rifle magazine clips can not be manufactured (today) with more than a 15 bullet capacity, although you can buy clips with more at gun shows and other stores for extravogant overprices.
4) Concealed Liscence permits require yearly re-testing of marksmanship, etc.
What more could you want?
Plus, gun control supporters and gun activists are bitter enemies. The subject is darkly concealed by a thick veil of propoganda. What are people to think about video games and guns when gun control activists appear on 'NBC Today' saying that when gamers play snipers in games such as Half-Life are considered to be in (Direct Quote) "God Mode?" Not to say that gun activists do not have their problems...
While we would all like to think that the government could regulate ALL guns, it is somewhat of a false hope. Some of the current laws today are hopelessly irrational. For instance, There are two gun models that are exactly the same in shape, shell, and charge, but one was made several deckades ago. Now, one of them is legal, and the other is not. This same law put a man in jail for years because the person who identified the gun was mistaken and provided false evidence to that hearing. Not to rant, or anything, but that person did not look carefully at the serial number.
One can not hope to right every wrong. Some things are not always certain. If the government took all of the civilian firearms away, would criminals still be able to access any through illegal means? Likely? Yes. Certain? No. Another situation would involve the complete opposite; that is, give everyone a chance to have a gun (within certain prerequisites!). What would happen? Would the number of carjackings-at-gunpoint go down? It could. For certain? Not at all. Still, I would be more cautious when I was (hypothetically) robbing a bank if 90% of the people present could have a loaded firearm.
That plan has problems, as well. It would be much more likely for a child/teenager to acquire a gun. While increasing public awareness, especially in schools, would remedy some, but not all. The possability of death by firearm increases. What if a thurough test was required to all who wanted a gun? Still, the abscence of certainty looms before us.
The essential words, "A well regulated Militia," were chosen with great purpose. As the Second Amendment 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.
The anti-gun-regulation proponents conveniently misconstrue the first half of the amendment and pretend that the second half is tells the whole story. They foolishly continue to debate a point that was settled and dismissed over 60 years ago.
<bart
... but if you ban guns, who's going to obey those laws? Are the criminals who would be using the guns in bad ways going to listen to the ban? Or are the law obiding Americans who keep a gun for self-defence going to be stripped of their weapon? Think about that. Who's more dangerous? The person looking to defend theirself, their home, and their family, or the person looking to harm them, and not caring about any laws or any ban on firearms? Seems cut and plain to me, and I don't even own a gun!
If having more guns causes more problems then why when Kennesaw, GA passed a law that all homeowners be gunowners did crime drop?
I know this to be true. But you can read about it here.
When the law was first passed the local press and other towns thought they were insane. But it worked.
And more criminals in the USA has been shot by private citizens defending themselves than police.
Removing guns from lawful, responsible people does nothing to keep them out of the hands of actual criminals.
And why is that, exactly? There are these things called police in most countries that are charged with keeping illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals.
By definition, being criminals, they will not surrender the firearms in their posession.
At first, perhaps. But as the firearms get confiscated, they'll grow rare and expensive. Not every criminal will bother to afford one, and they won't be available for "crimes of passion".
Once guns are removed, force of numbers will again apply, and the outnumbered criminals will lose. (If the number of honest citizens doesn't outnumber the criminals in your society, you've already lost.)
So they have them, and no one else does. Not a good concept for self protection.
I disagree -- it's an excellent concept for self protection! Now you can find the criminals before there's a murder, instead of after.
The hardest job isn't arresting the crooks -- it's finding the bastards in the first place, because they blend in with "responsible, law abiding" people. But if none of the "good guns" have guns, and if you find someone who's gone out of his way to get his hands on lethal weapon, there are reasonable grounds to assume he's actually out to kill someone. Bingo. Jail time for bad guys, and the good guys sleep easier at night.
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
A "lawful, responsible" person isn't ever a threat to anyone: threatening others is illegal and irresponsible.
I'm worried about the criminal or irresponsible person, though. Or rather, the person who acts in a criminal or irresponsible manner. Human behaviour is hard to predict; criminal behaviour especially so.
What if my neighbour is one of the irresponsible ones, and he gets drunk, and shoots cans from his deck, and kills my son with a stray bullet? I'm out a son; no lawsuit in the world will bring him back.
What if he's a stable, sober guy, except for the one time when he's had a horible day at the postal office, finds out he's dying of cancer, runs over his dog on the way home, and then sudenly catches his wife in bed with another man? If he flies off the handle and just snaps into a rage and loses it, well, it's human nature. It's not good, but it happens.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want there to be a gun to be in his hand right then, though he might be perfectly fine with one before and after.
We can't determine in advance very well that people will be law abiding or responsible at all times.
It seems, therefore, a good idea to keep firearms away from people unless they can demonstrate both a reasonable standard of necessity and responsiblity. For example, police probably need firearms, and forestry services have a legitimate use for dart guns. Both also get training to ensure that they use them responsibly, and are held to a standard of public accountablity. Military have military equiptment -- and are held publicly accountable for their actions.
A thirteen year old kid whose life is full of wretched teen angst shouldn't be able to grab a gun, and shoot up his school. He doesn't need a gun, for one thing -- for another, he's probably too young for a serious adult responsiblity.
I think the best argument for firearms control is this incident, which happened in my home town. It's got a population of 300,000 people, so it's a decent size, but we're not very jaded on crime, as you'll see.
I was alarmed to read in the local paper that there were recent reports of "sniper attacks"; copycat shootings like the ones in Washington.
However, these "shootings" were done with air rifles. Six people were shot, but no one was badly hurt. One person was sent to hospital for stitches in the side of their face -- they came close to being blinded.
The police took the matter quite seriously, and the two men involved have been arrested.
But if my country didn't have gun control laws, well, picture what happens if six people get shot with real rifles instead of air rifles. My guess is, at best, six people in hospital, at worst, six corpses. The person who got shot in the face would probably have died if a bullet had gone through his head. To me, that's reason enough to support gun control right there.
The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in.
Or they might just assume the people inside do have guns, and shoot them in their sleep.
And in an area where everyone owns guns and fires guns, a few more gunshots won't be noticed when the police try to investigate. Now you have a murder with no witnesses.
And since all the "lawful, responsible" citizens carry guns, the police can't track the killer by the firearm, so he's hard to try and convict. Now you have a killer roaming around on the loose, instead of behind bars, where he belongs.
Doesn't sound too safe to me. I'd rather have a community where I can dial 911 on my cell phone when I see a guy with a gun on the way into the bank, so that the police can get there before he leaves, not after the getaway car has sped away.
--
AC
Actually your post regarding nuclear weapons is wishful thinking which is completely at odds with reality. If every nation on earth had nuclear weapons there would never be a conventional war ever again. However, nuclear war would be a regular occurrence. You see, not every country has any kind of restraint in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some are run by bloodthirsty despotic dictators. Many of these would use a nuke without provocation, if they had them. It's easy for those who live in relatively reasonable countries to expect that level of behavior from other countries. The facts of history do not bear out this reasoning, however well-meaning it is.
In truth the most compelling thing I have to offer is personal experience. I have used a fiream 3 times in my life to defend both myself and others, including a total stranger from harm. In two of the three cases the firearm did not even have to be drawn or displayed to be an effective deterrant.
The ability to let it be known to the assailants that I was armed was enough. In each case people's lives were at stake, and I was outnumbered in 2 of the 3 instances and in every case the assailant was armed with a weapon (car, chains, and knives). In my view a firearm in the hands of a competent and level headed citizen is more effective at stopping crime than an our armed police, search and seizure laws and no knock warrants.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
You really need to get over these conspiracy theory justifications.
What are you talking about? There is no conspiracy theorized in the post. America really IS full of Jackasses. Take a look at our crime rates (Violent and not).
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
And everyone in Switzerland has a gun, it's required by law. That's his point. And GB does have a fairly high crime rate, which was his other point.
In other words: The Swiss government does not register every bullet. It registers every bullet it pays for and distributes. Enormous difference.
I doubt gun owners would mind the US government giving everyone ammunition, even if they registered it.
You do realize that this is a hacker site, and many of the people here are quite skilled at defeating or modifying such technology-based measures, right? Oh, and any pistol which "brands the shooter and immediately calls police" is going to be an untested weapon at the time it is needed for defense, so most people won't be used to firing it. This means wild shots going through walls, assailants escaping uninjured. You actually need training to operate a firearm with precision. This would be impossible with the implementation you are suggesting. The last thing I want to ever see is a bunch of armed people who have no skill in the proper handling and marksmanship necessary for proper defense. No problems solved in MY opinion, which I respect.
Cato Institute's 2nd Amendment Studies is a listing of some of the venerable think tank's pieces and commentary on the matter. In particular, Cato Policy Analysis No. 109 (though not linked to in the above page) is a classic study by Manhattan's former assistant district attorney David B. Kopel from July 1988. Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 from October 1997 is also quite good. Both are extensively well-sourced with complete citation information.
The only problem with your arguement is this: You assume that by banning guns they will cease to exist. If I own an gun by your notion I am a criminal. However I ask you, what if I really am a criminal? What if I am that sick nut job that wants to have my way with your corpse? Whats to stop me from obtaining a gun, in any way possible, and going after people? laws? There are already laws against killing people, and look how many people die despite them. Where you gonna cut off the "Weapon" level, recently in my state a person killed another with a pen, should we ban pens also, as they can be deadly? What about the fact that i could kill you with my bare hands, or a kitchen knife (given properly fitting gloves), are you going to take those away too? I could turn just about anything into a weapon if properly motivated, yet by some fluke of nature I haven't actually killed anyone yet.
Oh and BTW You should be afraid of me, not only do I not support the banning of guns, but I play Dungeons and Dragons, Violent Video Games, and I listen to Rock & Roll. So you should know I am just a cess pool of evil waiting to boil over into society at large!
You could get 12 with rat poison and a box of donuts.
(Note: PLEASE do not try this at home, or anywhere else, especially near me)
The only thing banning guns will do is stop deaths by guns. From what I gather that's quite a few. Don't suggest that suddenly people who couldn t commit crimes will now find a reason to simply because the threat of guns is not there. If everyone has a gun then things might even out, but you will still have thousands of deaths. Take out the gun factor and you save lives. And jackasses will think again before threatening others. Simple.
In 2000, there were 16,653 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes
If firearms make almost the same number of victims than alcohol, then it's even worse than I thought. Another reason why your argument is weak: ~3000 deaths in WTC attacks, the same as the number gun victims during 3 months. Is that a reason to do nothing (your reasonning implies that)?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
And my pount was not crime, but DEATHS BY GUNS. You cant compare crime rates in general with crime rates by death by guns. Its riduclous to say well other countries have high crime rates either with or without gun control. It's how many people are dying that matters. And America is obviously incapable of gun ownership, so take them away.
check this out for TONS of info on gun control, facts about what's happened in other countries tat banned guns, and general good stuff.
-Jon
This website at the Australian Institute of Criminology has quite a variety of criminal statistics for all Australian states, and some overseas countries like USA, Canada and NZ.
You don't answer to my first question. You answered : training and responsibilty are necessary. Right, everyone agrees. But my first question was : how the right to carry a gun can protect children from being shot BY CRIMINALS like happened in some schools.
My second question was to point out that even if you carry a gun, anyone who wants to kill you can kill you. A gun protects from robbery or rape, I agree, but killing a robber if he has no weapon is a crime.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Gun control works. May take a long time with America, but you must start somewhere. And no, YOU haven't killed anyone yet, nor will you probablyl. But a lot of people DO and a lot of people find it easy to do because guns are part of the culture. Call me an idealist, but if you disagree that NO GUNS = NO DEATHS BY GUN, then you are truly asleep to reality.
How was my message a troll you fucking dickhead of a moderator? You suppose that anything that criticises the most violent nation on earth is not a valid comment? Asshole.
John was not a liberal at college (Vanderbilt University 1976-1980) but was very anti-gun. I and others had some heated debates with him abount the merits of responsible gun ownership in a free society.
John's later analyis proved out many of the points that came out in these debates.
John's book should not be dismissed out of hand and should be read by "both sides" of the gun debate.
Last year the Economist run an article (subscription required) focusing on the strong link between suicides and firearms in the US.
Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in the US in 1999 (57%) were committed with a firearm, according to the Center for Disease Control. Suicide is the number 11 cause of death in the US, and in 1999 it outnumbered homicides 1.7 to 1.
Apparently, the suicide rate among US youth is much higher than in similar industrialized countries, because of the ready availability of firearms, especially because suicides are often impulsive (article on the Journal of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior) and can be thwarded if the person gets to think long enough. Clearly, this is not possible when a gun is around.
Way to stereotype Americans. You know, some of us can actually think for ourselves.
To all of you who have pointed to the book by Lott you should know that subsequent research by economists and statisticians has shown that his results are not robust. When you extend the time period beyond 1992, when his sample ended, you find that more guns caused more crime. That is, he only gets the result he does because of the coincidence of lower crime over the period he studied. When you extend the data his result goes away.
Look at: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/
or read the American Economic Review article by Rubin and Dezhbakhsh from 1998. Lott was the first to do it carefully but his results have not stood the test of peer-review or time.
I will give you that there probably would be less fatal crimes occuring, as it is a bit tougher to kill someone without a gun than with. But I am a libertarian by nature, I believe people should stay the hell out of my business, and I will stay out of theirs.
To quote Archie Bunker "Would it make you feel better if they were pushed out of winders?"
yes if there were no guns at all, then there would be no gun deaths, much like before the gun was invented, yet amasingly people have managed to kill one another in massive amounts for thousands of years of recorded history, all without the aid of the gun. However did they manage to do that? While we are at it, why not ban cars after all NO CARS= NO CAR RELATED FATALITIES!
Cars are not used as directed weapons of murder. I'm sure some are, but don't compare silly things like that, and don't rely on historical arguments to justify your belief in gun ownership. I'm concerned about the future, not living in the past. And guns are not a right, they are an instrument governed by law, which are arbitrarily based on what governments think is the proper way to control and manage them. Thankfully I don't have to worry about ever facing a gun because in my country they are controlled. Yes there is crime, but in general we are peaceful and don't rely on the availability of a quick solution (ie having a gun around) to solve problems. Believe it or not, but taking away the option causes perpetrators to think twice.
..is using both hands. It so happens to be the case that if you're engaged with an enemy in close quarters combat, when you have both hands on your weapon you're probably in control of the situation and if you have one hand on your weapon you're probably running or firing blindly and hitting nothing but air. A simple remedy to this is to get a grip and put both hands on your weapon and attempt to take CONTROL of the situation. Hence, gun control is using both hands. I know it sounds funny but there's truth behind it.
The only thing banning guns will do is stop deaths by guns. From what I gather that's quite a few.
Absolutely. Assuming banning guns actually removed guns' presence.
Don't suggest that suddenly people who couldn t commit crimes will now find a reason to simply because the threat of guns is not there.
Thats not what I was suggesting. I'm suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns will still commit them without guns.
If everyone has a gun then things might even out, but you will still have thousands of deaths. Take out the gun factor and you save lives.
Exactly. In the unlikely event that there were no guns in America then there would be no shootings here.
But its important to understand that guns aren't what allows people to kill one another, they just make murder require less effort. People will still be attacked by other means - usually resulting in injury, often resulging in death. And that's what really needs to be addressed: Whatever it is that makes people resort to violence. Be it poverty, frustration, mental illness, substance addiction, whatever.
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
Put out a sign saying "This house has a valuable collection of firearms" and see how you do. Some burglars are fairly proficient. If you aren't home (and they'll know), they don't have to worry about being shot, and they know they'll be able to sell your guns. They are worth more, and easier to carry, than a t.v.
I got mugged. The shithead had the drop on me, and had I been carrying, he'd have had another gun to show for his night's work.
The fundamental reason for the inclusion of the "Right To Bear Arms" in the Constitution of the United States, is quite simple.
(1) In the absence of an armed electorate, the continuation of Democracy is essentially at the will of the elite.
(2) An armed electorate does not depend in the goodwill of the Governement for it's security.
Remember, in the US the Government is somewhat different to that in many countries: it exists, Constitutionally, specifcally *for* the people. Historically, the governements of Monarchies existed to control or even exploit the people.
Why can't the Governement cannot be trusted absolutely to look after the interests of the people? Over hundreds of years the institutions of governement can and will change. What has been seen in great Republics of the past, such as Ancient Rome, or Renaisance Florence, is that the checks and balanaces that originally divided power between branches were ultimately broken and currupted, frequently by the people themselves under the misdirection of power-hungry men such as Julius Caesar or the various Medici.
Eventually, after such a time, if a crisis arises, a dictator can seize the reigns of government and rid himself of any residual trappings of the Republic. The nation is now a Dictatorship. This has happened repeatedly throughout history. The absence both of a division of power, and of an armed electorate, prevents the people from remedying the situation... the dictator rules absolutely, and the republic has ended.
Sure, a few unlucky kids will find their Pop's 9 and take out a couple of buddies in a tartrazine frenzy each year, but the benefits of gun ownership for the nation far outweigh the risks.
Some contemporary examples. If the German people had been armed as the United States is, it is possible that they could have deposed Hitler, at their whim... not his. Another one. If the East Timorese were armed, a couple of hundred Government sanctioned armed paramilitaries couldn't have terrorized the entire territory. Can you imagine what would happen today if even a few thousand paramilitaries marched into New York City or Los Angeles intending to terrorize the people? They wouldn't get more than 3 blocks before they were gunned down in a hail of *civillian* fire.
*That* is the guarantee of the Constitution. An armed electorate doesn't depend on the goodwill of it's Goverment for it's security... a fact that would not be lost on the East Timorese.
Try this one: "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" by John R. Lott, Jr. If you search for it on Amazon, you will also get links to related material. I read Lott's book awhile back, and it is a pure statistical (multiple regression) analysis. By looking at county-level crime reporting, he concludes that concealed firearm carry laws result in a decrease in crimes where the victim is present (e.g. murder, rape, home invasion, etc) and a slight increase in crimes where the victim is not present (e.g. auto theft). Additionally, counties w/o a concealed carry law that border counties with such a law (e.g. all of Maryland vs. Virginia) experience an increase in crime as the criminals go after easier, nearby targets. None of the above should really come as a surprise if you assume that criminals are lazy, opportunistic, and have some degree of self-preservation. What is interesting is that no one in the anti-gun camp has ever mathematically refuted Lott's work (they hurled lots of insults and he reportedly got some rather incindierary flame mail, but nothing more). Lott's data is available for review and comes mainly from DOJ crime reporting. Good Luck!
google: bullet fingerprinting, first search result -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1935847.stm
5 3%257E955598%257E,00.html)
e rprinting.shtml
I'm not an expert, I can't comment on the above url. What I can tell you is that gun barrels can be modified quite easily (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E
This article sounds quite biased (I know, opposite of the point of this whole topic), but here it is anyways http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/102402/opi_fing
"According to Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the theory is flawed for two reasons: 'One, the barrel is one of the most easily changed parts of many guns, and two, the barrel, and the signature it leaves on a bullet, is constantly changing.'"
"Criminals tend to favor easily concealed handguns. Replacing the barrel of most semiautomatic handguns takes about 10 seconds, while changing the barrel of a revolver is only slightly more difficult (it requires unscrewing the barrel)."
Slow down and let technology mature. Face recognition cameras in public where overhyped and all we got was a bunch of false arrests and very pissed off innocent people.
IIRC, in Bowling For Columbine Michael Moore claims Canada has 7.5 million guns for about 30 million people (.25 guns/person), while America has "a quarter billion" (250 million) guns for about 250 million people (about 1 gun/person). That's hardly a higher per capita gun ownership rate for Canada. The point was that Canada has a relatively similar per capita rate of gun ownership and considerably less violence.
Even if laws get passed, it doesn't mean everyone will give up their guns. I, for one, would easily give up my second amendment rights if and only if I knew no one else had a gun. Other people would keep their guns, and if I gave up mine, I would just be more of a victim.
This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
A book written by someone setting out to show gun control reduces crime that discovered that the opposite was overwhelmingly true.
Not wanting to just point you to a few conservative or NRA (or whoever's) websites and articles which will have an obvious bias, check a pretty basic and vannilla Google search of the title and author.
Best wishes with your research!
You just don't get it. I'm not saying banning guns will stop crime. For fucks sake. Banning guns (and hopefully getting them out of circulation eventually - it's possible but u need to start somewhere) WILL REDUCE DEATHS. Thats my point. And that in itself is reason enough. I'm sick of these "but people will find other means" arguments. Of course they will, but guns make it an easier option, as you agreed. So are you for making commiting a murder more difficult, or are you going to stupidly defend an institution that is killing thousands of your people a year simply because you think it's some kind of god given right. Bullshit. Guns are no more a right than anything else you won or desire. If its just plain dumb then it should be stopped.
Short answer: Congress may regulate interstate commerce.
1. 1934 National Firearms Act, requiring the registration and taxation of machineguns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices (grenades, flamethrowers, etc.), and other weapons. Before this you could buy a Tommy gun through the mail direct from Thompson. 26 U.S.C. 53 et seq.
2. 1968 Gun Control Act, requiring that all firearms transactions be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer, and prohibits sales of military surplus machineguns to the public. Before this you could buy most guns through the mail from Sears. Public Law 90-618.
3. 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, prohibiting future manufacture of machineguns. Guarantees the right to transport any firearm through a state in which that firearm would be prohibited, to any other state where the firearm is legal, provided that the firearm is unloaded and locked in the trunk or a locked case in a vehicle. Also requires ATF records of gun purchases (except machineguns) to be destroyed after certain time period. Before this it was lawful to manufacture machineguns with payment of $200 tax.
4. 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, prohibited future manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Requires FBI to offer National Instant Check system for states to use in background check of handgun purchases. Miscellaneous other provisions. Before this it was legal to manufacture assault weapons and large capacity magazines. H.R.3355.
In the last 70 years, the federal government has gone from zero regulation (and that means none) to significant regulation. These are the primary federal firearms laws, most other restrictions are administrative regulations by the ATF and of course laws at the state level which have been around much longer than the federal laws. These federal laws are based on Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Indeed, federal law does not prevent you from manufacturing your own firearm as long as it is not an assault weapon or a machinegun. People do this all the time, and make some surprisingly good stuff. See FAQ at http://www.atf.treas.gov. Today, it is still possible to own machineguns and other so-called "National Firearms Act" or "Class III" weapons if you live in a state like Nevada, because currently "permission" is required from your local chief law enforcement officer. Few of these CLEOs will sign the ATF form 4 to allow you to buy a machinegun or other restricted item, except in Nevada and some other gun-friendly states. Machineguns are very expensive (and the prices are increasing) as no more will ever be legally manufactured for civilians. A select-fire M16A2 in mint condition runs around $12,000. Bottom line is money can buy anything.
None of these laws has been held to offend the 2d amendment, because the 2d amendment does not guarantee private ownership of firearms. More recently, Congress's attempt to ban guns from schools and "school zones" was ruled unconstitutional because it was not closely enough related to interstate commerce.
Show me one gun that has a "reasonable use for defense or hunting" that cannot be used "to kill or assault people".
I'll be here all night.
I'm NOT advocating gun control, btw. I'm saying that one man's idea of home defense is another's arsenal of death.
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
And it's illegal in many places for hunting game (biped or quadruped). ;-)
Of course here in occupied Aztlan you'd be doing a public service to your community.
I think that's all I have to say about that.
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
The problem I have with your question is that you are assuming that the facts brought forward that agree with the "extreme" positions are not facts. Facts are facts. Your position should reflect an accurate apraisal of the facts. If a fact corresponds to one side or the other, the way you have phrased the question automatically disqualifies it as an admissible fact. The logic of your question is flawed. Rather than dismiss the evidence brought to bear by the "extremes", you should analyze it for truth and consistency. Then, use that to base your opinion. If your opinion agrees with one side, don't automatically assume you've made a mistake.
Free speech and religion aren't a right either, but thank the holy Piltdown Man that our gracious benevolent and all knowing government has granted us the instrumentality of the free exercise thereof (something about pointing guns at said government may have had something to do with above benevolence, however.)
The US has always been full of guns. But gun crime hasnt always been this bad.
It used to be the case, when everyone grew up in the country, and guns were a right of passage, that parents taugh their kids basic values and life lessons. Respect for guns was just one part of that. We have serious social problems, like poor education in the inner city and kids without responsible parents. Problems that afterschool programs dont solve. No school, no matter how well funded, can teach kids if their parents wont support them. That is the biggest problem we have today.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
You, Sir, are an idiot.
First of all, you are incorrect in your argument. The correct statment is: No LEGAL guns != No deaths by guns.
About your beloved Australia:
"However, the use of handguns in homicides in Australia has increased from 13% in 1995/96 to 42% in 1998/99."
Source: http://www.aic.gov.au/media/20000726.html
**And guns are not a right, they are an instrument governed by law, which are arbitrarily based on what governments think is the proper way to control and manage them**
In the US Firearms are a Right, and one explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution. What you don't realize is that the 2nd Amendment is not so that citizens can have firearms for protection against common criminals, the 2nd Amendment is in place to protect us from our own goverment. My founding fathers were smart enough to realize that they had just overthrown an unjust goverment, and that the citizens of America may need to do again in the future.
You are a subject, I am a citizen. Think about that.
--Demonspawn
Chances are, if somebody wants to stick you with a knife, they're not going to feel all cozy about the rules, and just may, if you're packing your own knife, decide to cheat, and pull a gun on you. You can't uninvent them.
I suppose you're in favor of Nuking Iraq to keep them from developing nukes.
RE: New Charter
From the point forward, the CDC will only be concerned with viri and bacteria matters. This new policy, thoughfully suggested by an anonymous coward, will ensure that the CDC is best targetted towards the proper goals envisioned by Mr Coward. All employees researching non-viri and non-bacteria deaths are hereby layed off.
Thank You,
Chief, CDC, USDI
XML causes global warming.
If you get rid of all the guns, it won't be long before someone invents a high-velocity knife chucking machine.
... will find you what you need.
+Lott +Mustard
Type these words into a google search, and there you will find an unbiased report that found empirically that an armed populace means less violent crime. Professor John Lott, University of Chicago, looked at all federal, state, and local law enforcement data as well as economics (Eric Mustard's purpose) since economics play a part in crime rates independent of guns. All other guns studies ignore the natural ebb and flow of crime rates, and thus erroneously report the effect of concealed carry legislation.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
I don't care much for guns, don't own one, don't go shooting, don't really care.
I don't care much for the NRA - I think they go a bit overboard at times.
I think the 2nd ammendment is outdated - we have a well armed militia and probably won't need to come running out of the house to keep the King of England at bay, or even the reds.
That all being said, I think gun control is a waste of time. Much like the copy-restrictions on cd's/software/whatever, all it does is add a degree of difficulty for legitimate people - if I go to the store to buy a gun to shoot Bambi or coke cans, I have to jump through this hoop and that hoop to do something legal...meanwhile some hood or gangbanger will be getting some black market gun without all this hassle.
About the only place that I see stronger gun control helping would be crimes of passion - getting pissed and shooting someone. However, I think if I was that pissed to kill someone, then not having a gun would not be a deterant...there are enough heavy blunt objects in this world to help.
I think what is needed is sticter punishments (not a fan of the death penalty):
Shoot someone during a crime, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Shoot someone during a crime of passion, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Shoot someone in a drive by, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Get caught with an illegal gun, 20 years in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Instead you get infinite trials, out in a few years, and a book deal or a rap record.
Like I said - my views are mixed...don't own or want one, but don't care if others have one.
Just 21 more posts and this story makes HOF!!
Let's make it a troll-a-licious ending!
Btw: I am looking for a girlfriend
This has been a 100% genuine NaveWeiss AC post.
The Australian medical community views gun related deaths as a health issue and so it is reported on from time to time in Australian medical journals. This may be a good source of unbiased (less biased?) material (albeit from another country). One fact I remember from reading an article in a medical journal years ago is that you are twice as likely to be shot by a gun if you or someone in your household has a gun.
...it's the blacks using guns. get rid of blacks.
My first thought when I read the headline was "oh, gg, slashdot has been h4xxor3d."
WTF does "multicultural" mean, anyway...here we have lame-brained liberal dipsticks trying to implement in such a fashion that DIVIDES people, i.e., balkanization. We also have "civil rights leaders" such as Farrakhan teaching black people to hate American and whites as well as university profs teaching the same hatred in "Afro Studies". These same people think Communism can still succeed if the "right" people implement it, despite its absolute proven failures - can you say 100 million dead in this century? How's THAT for violence? Can we give the bullshit multiculturism a rest...it's not working. Quite the opposite. On the American universities that push for more "multiculturism" (which seems to be about bashing Western culture and promoting Marxism and/or every third world quaintness) there have been MORE racist incidents. Do you think there might be a connection there?
Emigrating to or even being a born citizen is not something that is just to be taken for granted. You are expected to adopt certain cultural standards, one of them being dealing with certain customs of majority (i.e., if you don't practice Xianity, shut up and sit down. I happen to not practice, but I don't piss and moan about it, and I'm getting tired of athiests, agnostics, Moslems, and worst of all, guilty liberals bitching about it) - when in Rome, do as the Romans do, and get the fuck over it. You are not here to tell everyone else here how to conduct themselves. Getting all worked up over the Ten Commandments being in a courtroom just insults 80% of Americans. I have "heritage" from several European countries, but I hold solidarity with America, and I consider myself an American first and foremost, above all else, and so should everyone else who has been granted the PRIVILEGE to be here, by birth or immigration. Love it or leave it is the best policy. There are plenty of other people who would be glad to take the place of someone who doesn't love it here.
The fact is: US Dept. of Justice figures show that a disproportionally high number of crimes are committed by blacks. It's an ugly truth, but there it is. Here's another truth: despite our "gun culture", or "culture of violence" (or whatever stupid self-hating phrase American liberals are using these days), if we had the same racial makeup as Canada, we'd have equivalent homicide levels. Again, there's a lot of blame to go around about why that is: many blacks from single-parent homes, liberal programs encourage this behavior, the history of slavery, etc...but the fact remains.
Sorry to be blunt with the facts, folks. If I hear another Canadian get on his/her high horse about their stupid "multiculturism", I think I'm going to barf. That's like someone in Vail, Colorado praising their multiculturism. Give me a break.
Ha ha suckaz!!
http://stuntaz.cjb.net get ready fo' sum pimpin' rides and phat beats!
...just give me my freakin' GUNS! Hands off!
More importantly, said "Fact" without any actual date implies that DalTech either failed to read the post or missed its point. And has firmly lodged himself in the category of those who are rabidly biased.
Someone who practices knife throwing could probably soundly plant a knife in your neck with a little more effort.
Hmm, that's not a bad idea. Probably more of a deterrent than the security system thing that's out there right now..
Er...Guns are a right.
In the ton's of research i do for my major in college i find only biased views. I was tought that it was my goal as the researcher not to only take the views and desciminate them but to also weigh them and present an unbiased arguement. That is the job of the researcher.
How do the police protect against children from being shot by criminals in school? I'm not saying firearm ownership is the holy-grail. It doesn't stop ALL crime, it can't prevent every form of crime. My not owning a firearm also would not change the fact that criminals have them and often obtain them illegally.
The above pretty much is my answer to your second point, but with some additions. Again, carrying a concealed firearm increases my chances of survival if I am unlucky enough to find myself in a bad situation which would threaten my life. It's not a cure all nor does it make me invincible. I can still be run over by a car while crossing at the crosswalk. Secondly, I wouldn't shoot an unarmed robber nor give anything to an unarmed robber. Perhaps you missed the part where I commented that I would be reluctant to kill another and overlooked my reference to personal responsibility on which you also agreed.
I dont know about you but if someone breaks into my home, im not going to stop and think.. "does this guy want to just steal my dvd player or is he going to try to hurt me or my family?" If someone enters my home, for the sole intention of taking something that is mine or to hurt me or my wife and children, you can bet your ass I'm wont even have second thoughts about shooting the bastard. I have to take the side of the gun-toting people on this one even tho I may sound like I have that "good ole' boy" redneck attitude. Guess we can send all the burgulars to Australia...they'll be safer there.
yeah .. just try you commie bitch. the stat will go even higher.. fuck you.
Short version: more guns = more suicides
/ p1/article.jhtml)
> half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will
> often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available.
You're very wrong. People attempting suicide are not thinking rationally, meaning "what's the most efficient means of killing myself?" is _not_ a question they're effectively considering. Indeed, usually "only a minority actually want to die." (quotes and stats from http://www.findarticles.com/g2602/0005/2602000512
For example, most adolescent suicide attempts are via overdose or wrist slitting, but most adolescent suicide _deaths_ are via firearm. Less firearms = more failed suicide attempts = less dead kids.
> Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often.
Which is precisely why they lead to more suicides.
Taking the 15-19 age group as an example (since I happen to have data for them), we see that the suicide rate is about 0.01% per year, and the rate of attempted suicide is *150* times higher!
In the US, the VAST majority of people who attempt suicide don't succeed, and the momentary urge to die passes. Giving people an easy way to kill themselves makes their death simple and convenient, and - much like crimes of convenience - that will make it happen much, much more often and effectively.
More guns = more suicide deaths
The point on the political spectrum that the original post may be searching for is Americans for Gun Safety -- which is a very moderate group that acknowledges the right to bear arms while making a strong factual case for laws to ensure that everyone who buys a gun goes through a background check.
The Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis is run by Garen Wintemute MD, who is an emergency room physician, licensed gun dealer, and sometimes gun owner. He is highly respected in the field. His research generally supports laws that make it harder for people with minor criminal records to get guns, but he is not afraid to tell the gun violence prevention advocates when they've got it wrong.
The CDC WISQARS statistics system will let you find out how many people died from gun injuries (and other causes) by year, age, cause, state, etc. You'll find things that neither side is willing to say loudly -- like the majority of gun deaths in America are suicides. It's also nice technology.
"...that are objective in dealing with these subjects, and I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS..."
Really now. This is Slashdot. Objectivity and the facts have no place here. In fact, I'm very well tempted to simply scream "troll" and be done with it. I mean, come on... I can't be the only one that didn't have to scan all 1000 posts to know that an ass-ton of them were instantly going to be anti-American/anti-Gun. Face it-- You want unbiased sources, go somewhere else. Slashdot isn't research referral site, it's a sewer. Asking it's users on topics like this, Linux and Microsoft is like picking through a septic tank with little hope of finding the relevant information you're looking for. I don't know where, but trust me, you're better off getting your info somewhere else, far, far away from here.
That said, I believe there was a study done in Norway or Switzerland where everybody is required to own a gun and keep it in their house (don't ask me to link it, beats me where it is). Violent gun related crimes are down somewhere at 1%. The question is what are they doing differently from the US and can it be applied without comprimising the concept of a government for the people by the people. After all, the US government is not built on trust. It's why there are three branches, a presidential term limited to four years with only one chance of re-election AND why people have the right to bear arms in it's defense of it's dissollusion.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
((steps behind Anon)) I'm with you. Just try to make us give'em up.
I also live in New Zealand.
Our gun laws has very big political support in New Zealand since all the right-wingers, centerists and left-wingers are very supportive of the laws. Also, note that the laws has not changed much for the past 50 years apart from changes to make it more difficult to obtain guns. I have yet to hear a major political party (read: a political party that has seats in the current parliament) critizise our gun laws. The public, in general, are also quite supportive of the laws. Everyone realises how much postivie impact the laws has had on our safety.
When I read or hear stories about gun shooting in the United States (especially school shooting), I always compare the US situation to NZ's situation. Here in NZ these things nearly never happens since no-one has guns, except those who have guns for good reasons. However in the United States anyone can just go to a shop and buy a gun and shoot everyone in the street. Its so simple in the United States to obtain guns, it's no wonder why the US has one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the world.
I think the argument that people needs gun for protection is bullshit. If no one had guns, except for the police and people who have passed strict background checks, soicety would be a much better place. In New Zealand since very few people have guns we almost never have gun deaths -- however in the US since everyone has guns, many people use guns. If guns were banned, people would have no reason to have guns since no one else would have guns in the first place.
I would be very supportive of a change to make gun control much more stricter. It has worked very, very, very well in New Zealand -- to the point that we only have one or two major gun deaths every year. Hell, most of the police staff in New Zealand don't have gun, thats how well the laws has worked. I wouldn't be the first to say that US's lax laws on gun control is one of the many reasons why the US is such a dangerous country to live in these days.
While lax gun control might have worked in the 19th century, the US must wake up to the situation in modern times. Things has changed since the United States was first founded, and so the people of the United States should remember this fact when they make up their mind on gun control.
- James
*I* think we need to keep guns to prevent overpopulation. You seem to think it's a God given right to live! What bullshit. Life is "no more a right than anything else you want or desire. If it's just plain dumb then it should be stopped." I see that you advocate killing idiots. :)
Plus there is self defense, and just plain fun shit... :)
Shit adds up at the bottom...
You make me sick. When people with guns start talking about God-given rights, it's pretty frightening.
I'm not religious, but I presume you're a Christian. So, what exactly is 'Thou shalt not kill' to you? Some kind of polite suggestion?
Oh, I see, anyone who breaks into your property doesn't have the right to live. Where I live, that's not a capital offense, furthermore we leave judgment to the courts.
Why should I trust you to make the right decision about whether someone lives or dies? Oh, it's your god-given right. Ah well.
Btw, don't bother to reply, I won't listen to your drivel.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
http://reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.shtml
I think Reason Magazine can be considered pro-gun but this guy seems to have really done his homework.
I'm sure no one will ever see this tiny comment buried in all the 2000 inane, opinionated, biased, and just plain ignorant comments posted thus far, but here goes ...
I consider gun ownership part of the culture of personal responsibility that every truly honorable society should strive for. Life is a precious gift, and the taking of life one of the most serious acts a person can take. If you feel that owning a gun is your best bet to preserve life, especially that of you and your family, then go ahead and buy a gun. But part of owning a gun is taking responsibility for its use, including education children on its proper use, keeping it away from them if they are too young for it, and knowing how to use it yourself to successfully defend your family.
The government may try to legislate behavior on this issue, but treating the nation like children will never solve the problem. Give people responsibility, and let them learn to use it. It may take centuries or millennia, but eventually we will do it. If someone dies from illigitimate uses of firearms, well then our society is still not there yet. We can't save every person from being shot, but with some slow change we can make society safer at a more fundamental level. And of course note that we will never save everyone from accidents, just as outlawing bathtubs is not the way to save kids from drowning in them.
There will always be powerful weapons, given the progress of science to date, so outlawing them is not the ultimate answer. Education is the key of course to cleaning up our act. But personal responsibility is the particular goal I believe that could be accomplished.
The government ought to view passing legislation with more sincerity and try to plan for 100-1000 years hence, rather than their own re-elections. Our society has changed quite dramatically on a period of 100 years, and those nations who don't recognize the continual decay of basic humanitarianism are not going to fare well.
So gun control is not going to work, on a fundamental human level. Whether it will prevent a few deaths or not is not really the point.
But even the deaths by guns have actually gone UP in england since they started instituting strict gun control. Meanwhile, It's gone down here.
IMO, Britain has always been a fairly peaceful place, and never had a very high murder rate. Not because of lack of guns, but because the society just wasn't violent. England's home invasion rate is something like 3 times what America's is, because criminals are afraid or armed victims here. More afraid of running into an armed victim than into a cop actually.
In England it is illegal for you to defend yourself in any meaningful way, you are supposed to be patient and hope the cops come quickly. All this does is make criminals confident, as they only have to worry about the cops. And as we both know 'cops can't find a dick with BOTH hands'.
Shit adds up at the bottom...
I was recently trying to find information relating school shootings and the number of incidences which youth bring guns to school to laws in that particular state. Does anyone have information specifically on school shootings and weapons in general at schools?
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
I posted something exactly like this earlier. If its 2am in the morning and you hear your window break in another room and you got kids asleep just down the hall, are you going to stop to think "Gee, I bet this fellow just wants to take my dvd player" or whatever.. SCREW THAT..
Yeah we like violence. It gets the job done.
/. is a gigantic flame by the janitors.
We didn't used to be that way till europeans started forcing thier will on us in the 1700's.
We totally ignored the world until the Europeans begged us to come over and get them out of a jam in WWI. Then we went over poorly equipped and learned about violence from people that had stained thier soil with blood for millenia.
Then we went back into our shell and tried to recover from a depression. Then some other violent asshole decided to bomb our ships in Hawaii. So we geared up and haven't stopped fighting since.
Yeah we are violent but I suppose its only to keep another little pissant country from surprising us again.
You've done nothing but flame this whole thread then get shocked when you get called on it.
This whole Ask
Guns are not the problem. People will find a way to kill if they are serious enough.
The problem is people are assholes. And so are you.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
It is a right though. It is the right to self defense. The right to protect my other rights, with force if neccessary. As much as some people like to think the government can do everything for them, it just isn't possible.
Aside from that, we all know that banning guns doesn't make guns disappear. In England gun crame has went up drastically after the instituted strict gun control. How did this happen? Because the criminals, being criminals will not mind breaking a law to get guns. While the law-abiding citizen obeys the law and can't get a gun to protect himself from foresaid criminal.
It is not possible to take guns out of circulation. They are not some magical device that is impossible to produce. Any small machine shop can be used to make guns, and would be, if guns were banned.
"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."
That sounds pretty damn clear to be a right to me..
Shit adds up at the bottom...
Well said!
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
There's no way to do one. The problem is that there is no way to prove causality; just corrolation. In general, there are enough other, corrolated factors, that it's not clear what helps. The short-term effects are also likely drastically different from long-term.
I prefer bow & arrow for that much quieter/cheaper kill :)
& I found ogg's to be a perfectly good substitute for mp3's & all doubt so far is removed about where they come from till people look at my ftp server & download them
Generally speaking I believe gun (and all other crime) to be cuased by your society.
As people have pointed out some cputnrioes very very strict laws eg virtual toal abannign of all guns have very high gun criem rates, and otehr with very lax laws (pelase take your mitlary issue automatic weapon and grenades home) have very low gun crime rates.
I think the case with the US is probably economically based adn to an extent cultrual.
Ie I suspect inmany cases it is poverty that is drviing gun crime and hopelessness.
Probably drugs too but I suspect that is a symptom of poverty and hopelessness in many cases.
Here is Aust we had less gun crime even when we had access to the same guns.
What we do have is a social secuirty system that emans even if you lose your job and cant find one for the rest of your life, you wont staerve and you wont end up on the street. Similarly if you do lsoe your job, you can most liely while living onsocial security get intoa uiniversity and get a degree, given the will to make soem sacrifces.
Interstingly as far as I know there has been no real decrease in gun crime, if you exclude statisical blips such as the Port Arthur massacre(the work of a madman as oppsoed to a crime of frustrration or poverty).
Here's my view, if it saves just oen life its worth it.
Well if just one person had a gun at Pt Arthur, apart from the guy who wnet burko, they could have shot him and saved 40 lives.
The geni is out of the bottle and has ben for hundereds of years.
Its like nukes. We ahve them, we arent going to get rid of them. If your really scared of them, leanr about them, and get one.
You can then protect yourself.
Take repsonsibility for yourself.
Welcome to hell kids, gortbusters shall set you free.
More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R. Lott, Jr.
Unintended Consequences (A classic)
http://ron.dotson.net/guns.htm (Shameless plug for my own Gun page)
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
guns are killed by niggers!
The problem with all of the responses in favor of guns in the home so far is that they come from such deep and irrational fear. Sorry folks, but I'll take my chances with a baseball bat, before I would ever use a gun. So far, none of your "scenarios" have convinced me that I need a gun to feel safe. It sounds to me like you all have some fear issues that need to be worked out with good counselling.
Un-news
Sheesh. Only on Slashdot would I have to cite statitics to prove that Canada is whiter than America.
That is a kick in the head, huh? What's also funny is that he implies that "metropolitan" means non-white. Is he saying that a city cannot be urbane unless it has the proper mixture of non-whites? What a racist - another casualty of liberal doubleplus goodthink.
In that case, stop breathing. It's not a right either.
I carry a gun legally, and have for a couple years now. I will not get into my reasons other than to say, self defense. I have never had to shoot anyone, nor have I shot at anyone. I have only once had to remove my pistol from it's holster, and luckly was able to return it unfired. I obey all the gun laws in my state and check often for any new ones. I support the ban on high capacity magazines for hand guns. If I am in a situation that requires more than 10 shots to get me out of, I'm screwed before I can take my first shot.
So you want to take away my gun, fine. Next time I am presented with a similar situation, I will have to use CQB (Close Quarters Battle, a USMC acronym for hand-to-hand). CQB hand is lot messier, and a lot less safe for both parties. Ignore every Jet Li or Jackie Chan or Sonny Chiba movie you have seen, the one who wins is the one who hurts less and can still get away. Now what do you do when one party has a knife? So lets ban knives. Oh yeah, their is still that pesky hand to hand. No hands or feet allowed either, mandatory removal at birth, unless your in the goverment.
Hey, look at how well a lack of firearms did in China. You hardly see any crime there. What Triad, I don't see any Triad.
Before you ban guns, how about we regulate them a tad better. How about enforcing the laws a bit more? How about making the laws more concise? We have many good laws on the books, but not enforced. How about better education? To misquote a often used cliche: "Guns don't kill people, stupidity does."
Hell, I have had a half dozen roomates since I got my firearm, all of whom at first though the gun would magicly come up and shoot them. They didn't understand them. I just answered questions and showed them the weapons in a safe enviroment. A couple of my roommates now are into firearms and targetshooting, but just as many aren't. I still lock up my guns, but am not a scared of them accidentaly getting access to one and shooting themselves or more importantly, me. The really scary part is that they probably have more training with firearms than most people when they get their first gun. I know they have more than when I first got mine.
As for those thousands of deaths you were quoting, how many where from police related shootings?
Sorry to spout off on this, but it is a sore point, having had this same discussion earlier today.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
Well, I'm sure as hell glad you aren't calling the shots here.
The majority of the people who own guns in America know what a responsibility it is to have lethal force available to them. We don't just go around shooting people because they piss us off.
If you want to know how the real gun owners in America act, check out some CCW statistics. In several states, concealed carry license holders have been shown to have less accidents and improper use of force than the police.
Most gun-owners consider themselves well trained because they ARE. I'm certain there are irresponsible gun owners, I've even seen a few myself, but they are definately the minority. The responsible majority realize that you rarely ever need to actually use force to end a situation, the mere showing of force is almost always enough.
I sure know most criminals will stop robbing you as soon as they have a 12-gauge pointed at them...
Shit adds up at the bottom...
Some people collect guns. Some collect US Civil War era guns (http://www.n-ssa.org/), some WWI, WWII-Korean War, guns of the US, guns of Germany, guns made in France (http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurioandrelic firearmsforumsfrm32), guns designed originally in Belgium (http://www.falfiles.com), etc. There are even people who collect deactivated guns (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/walk/gen55/dgca /index.htm) I happen to have a fondness for World War II era bolt-action rifles myself, but to each his (or her) own. A lot of collectors never fire their guns, but many do. Some enjoy hunting with old firearms(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurio andrelicfirearmsforumsfrm7), others just enjoy taking them to a range and shooting them in competitions(http://pub109.ezboard.com/fparallaxsc urioandrelicfirearmsforumsfrm73).
Lots of people own firearms so they can reenact various wars, mostly the US Civil War, but WWI and WWII as well. A lot of people are getting into Cowboy Action Shooting, where you dress like a cowboy and shoot old(or old style) handguns, rifles and shotguns in competitions. (http://www.civilwar.com/linkre.htmm l& Figures.html)
http://www.reenactor.net/ww1/ww1reenact_ring.ht
http://www.io.com/~tog/
http://www.cowboyactionshooting.com/pages/Facts
Lots of people do own guns for hunting or personal defense, and I guess that falls under "only used for death." Animal Control personnel, Police, FBI, the Millitary, Game Wardens, Security Guards, Bodyguards, Postal Inspectors, some IRS Agents, and Bounty Hunters are amongst this group of people.
While on that note, handguns are not just used for death purposes. Sure, hunters do use them to well...hunt, but that's kinda rare. Organizations like the USPSA regularly hold pistol competitions (http://www.uspsa.org/). But you don't have to hunt or enter into competitions to have a legitimate sporting use of pistols. I shoot mine at the range (at paper targets from about 10-100 feet out) or from time to time on the ranch plinking at tin cans or coke bottles out in the fields.
Of course, rifles and shotguns are used in competions as well as just general plinking. I recently went to a John C Garand Memorial Rifle Match where 90% of the contestants used WWII-era M1 Garands (the rifle used by most of the US's troops in WWII). The winner of that match, with a score of 460 out of 500 points, shooting from 200 yards, was an older gentleman, in his 70s, shooting a gun made in 1942. It was my first match, and I was using an Indian manufactured bolt action rifle, made in 1968, (which hurt like hell after shooting 60 rounds, let me tell you) and I finished with a respectable 255.
There are all kinds of firearm competitions:
3-gun matches http://www.3gunmatch.com/whatistac.htm
IDPA http://www.idpa.com/
USPSA http://www.uspsa.org/
50 caliber shooting http://www.fcsa.org/
Single Action Shooting http://www.sassnet.com/
Bullseye Pistol http://www.bullseyepistol.com/
Single Stack Classic http://www.1911society.org/
People that shoot at explosives (from a long way away) http://www.boomershoot.org/
Conventional Pistol Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/conventional.asp
High Power Rifle Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp
Smallbore Rifle Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/smallbore.asp
Silhouette Competition http://www.nrahq.org/compete/silhouette.asp
Blackpowder Competitions http://www.nrahq.org/compete/blackpowder.asp
Action Pistol http://www.sarandpclub.org/SpecialEvents.htm
Civil War Skirmishing http://www.n-ssa.org/
And just people getting together to have a good time and a day at the range http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=58156
My point is, guns aren't just for hunting and killing people, they are used all the time as recreational devices. I know some people find that hard to understand, but I don't understand how people think playing golf is fun. Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks, I guess.
-Gandalf23
Then, once, your kid which will have drink too much alcohol last night will try to break into a house "for fun" and will get shot because such a stupid idiot as you lived into the house. Then you'll change your mind. But too late. And the worst of all, I think I WILL be sorry for you.
Good luck in your wonderful country where "irritating" someone too much could lead to a death. Because the problem is here: Where do you set the limit ? Once you'll have had 3 drinks and the postman will get shot because he trespassed on you doorstep. What a pity.
And about your comment, just before pulling the trigger to kill your burglar, make sure it is not one of your friend trying to make a joke, hhmmm ?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'd rather be a sysadmim.
KFG
Maybe countries with lots of social problems and guns don't mix....
I guess if you had a gun handy, you would shoot him, huh?
We are not the most violent nation on earth. I think a number of diffrent Pacfic Rim nations and Middle Eastern nations are competing for that title. I think we are still on the junior varsity team.
Maybe we should start executing random people so we can catch up! Quick Bush, start the department of homeland execution! We can't fall behind! Or maybe that doesn't count because it is goverment sponsored.
No one is saying that taking someone's life is something to take lightly. But if you have a gun, chances are the criminal with the knife isn't going to try to shank you.
Shit adds up at the bottom...
Various previous posts on this question have included comments about the
.45 by
usefulness of statistics, econometric models, and so on. I don't believe
it's true that "you can make statistics prove anything" or "econometric
models are useless" or other such things. However, I believe that those
tools can be misused -- just as can guns.
(Check out a book by John Allen Paulos, "Once Upon a Number: The Hidden
Mathematical Logic of Stories". It's not a math book, but it says a lot
about how navigate among anecdotes and numbers. Some of the lessons are
real eye-openers.)
Several posters have referred to Lott's studies. His basic methodology
was to compare availability of guns (as defined by how easy it is to get
a concealed carry permit) with crime rates. Of course, there is a
negative correlation, and it is highly logical: here in the wide open
spaces, we have a lot of guns, and we have lower crime rates. The first
question is, why? Statistics can only go so far: they can correlate
wide open spaces with a rural culture, which in turn is associated with
conservative values, which in turn are associated with lower crime -- or
does the lower crime reflect the effects of popular gun ownership caused
by conservative values? In sum, the statistics can show relationships,
but the relationships don't always reflect causality. (Incomes of
preachers can correlate to increased liquor consumption, but the only
connection may be the general level of economic well-being.)
A researcher will attempt to determine the impact of related factors on
the numbers. For example, gun ownership is more common in rural areas,
and crime is lower there. Lott, for example, did comparisons of violent
crime rates in adjacent counties, which are more likely to have similar
demographics, in an attempt to separate the causative factors. For
example, a rural county in Nevada (with permissive carry laws) might be
compared to a neighboring rural county in California (with restrictive
gun laws). In general, it is true that high gun ownership is negatively
correlated with violent crime rates in the United States. (In other
words, more guns are associated with less crime, other factors being as
equal as can be determined.) Where the debate starts (if you leave the
zealots out) is more about the causes. After all, a lot of obviously
significant variables, such as cultural ethics, simply aren't easily
quantified, and can't be factored out. All we have are "indirect"
indicators such as race or income.
It is of little value to compare Switzerland with the United States,
or rural areas with city areas, because there are too many different
factors to isolate, when those other factors are far more significant
than gun ownership. Culture, religion, education, income levels, drug
use, and other variables (including different mechanisms for the
acquisition of crime statistics) together overshadow the measurable
impact of gun ownership.
One conclusion is that gun ownership, per se, is not as highly related
to violent crime as are other factors. In other words, it doesn't matter
nearly so much as religion or education or race. Taking this one step
further, since a preponderance of the statistics assign a negative
correlation to guns and violent crime, an appropriate policy requires
that we must either (a) allow more guns in an attempt to reduce crime,
or (b) find some factor X which justifies ignoring the first decision.
Here is where the debate mostly breaks down, because any attempt to
find this factor X is based on logic, and it is logic which is more
elusive (if that were possible) than sound research.
I believe the solution lies in looking for deeper factors. My own
conclusion is that deep, personal characteristics are ultimately the
cause of social problems. The various parts of a person's life cannot
be separated from one another without disfunction, and the public and
community life cannot be separated from the inner life. Whether on a
personal level or a community level, fear breeds that which is feared.
Fear of crime breeds crime, fear of terrorism breeds terrorism, etc.
(It could be argued that crime breeds fear of crime, and so on, but my
personal belief is that the mind drives reality, not the other way
around.)
There is a difference between saying, "the first SOB who comes into my
house is going to take a bullet", and knowing that there is a
my monitor to be used if it's needed, and a shotgun by the door. The
first statement is grounded in fear, the second is just doing what
almost everyone else around here does.
(I'm not sure I know anyone that doesn't have a gun. Among my friends
and neighbors, guns outnumber people. When I think about it at all, I
know I'm safer that way. A friend a mile away tells me he'll take out
someone who needs it, from his house, if we call. He's a good shot. His
bullet will make it before the sheriff will. Those who aren't
comfortable living like this, with low crime, can go back to the cities,
with high crime, and take their chances.)
So in the end, the statistics are just that. The book I mentioned at the
beginning contrasts statistics against stories. Stories are about single
incidents, about the particular, while statistics are about large
numbers, about generalizations. I'm a human being. I'm not interested in
being a statistic.
National Institute of Justice Firearms and Crime page.
.38 caliber handgun. 12% with .357 caliber, 9.5% with 9mm, 7.4% with 12 gauge shotgun.
National Criminal Justice Reference Center. The most useful functions are abstract search and full-text search. Try searching for "firearms" or "assault weapons," etc.
From Guns Used in Crime (1995):
- From 1899 to 1993, 223 million guns were manufactured in the U.S. 79M rifles, 77M handguns, 66M shotguns.
- Criminals prefer easily concealable handguns over any other type of firearm.
- 1.26 million handguns remain in the National Crime Information Center stolen gun file.
- 240,000 machineguns are in the National Firearms registry. Of these, 7,700 remain in the stolen gun file.
- From 1982 to 1993, 687 police officers were killed by firearms other than their own. Of these, 25% were killed with a
- A 1991 survey of state prison inmates throughout the country found that assault weapons such as Uzi, AK, AR-15, etc. were carried by less than 1% of the inmates during the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated.
Giving the way you're replying, I am glad this (otherwise stupid) comment was trolled.
America certainly deserve a lot of criticism, but you'll learn (one day) that using too much words such as "dickhead" or "asshole" and yes, even "fuck" removes some credibility to your message. And by the way, Australia is certainly not a perfect country either.
That's life. If you think I'm a moron, then you just didn't realize yet that everyone is one for you.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Then you decided you don't need a gun to feel safe. Well, neither do I. I don't even have a gun suitable for home defense or self defense at the moment. All my guns are solely fun guns. I will be getting my CCW and a handgun when I turn 21 though, for several reasons. But it won't be because I'm afraid.
.357 Magnum, you never know...
As an aside, you choice of a baseball bat is not the most effective tactical choice. It doesn't have the reach to prevent you from getting stabbed. Hockey stick might be better, or a broom. Or maybe a S&W
Shit adds up at the bottom...
No offense, but c'mon.... you only have 13,000 freakin' people. I lived in a town of 15,000, and sure, we had more gun-related deaths than murders. Plenty in our town, and we didn't have a murder for 8 straight years when I lived there.
I can think of absolutely no gun-related crime reported here in the last eight years I've lived here.
According to this page there was one in 1997. This is why anecdotal evidence is scary, folks.
Three murders in about 20 years. That's about what my home town did with 15,000 people. You had a higher murder rate per capita than my town did.
The funny thing is, you don't mention the number of home robberies. Cuz' you did know that robbery is the number one way that criminals get their guns, right? There ain't no gun stores in inner city Atlanta.
I'm a criminal, yessirreeee. Kennesaw's the place to be.
1) your own life (that thief would fire if he saw you pulling out a gun, and frankly I won't blame him)
So you wouldn't blame the carjacker for killing the guy trying to defend his property, but you would blame the guy for killing the carjacker. Talk about a fucked up sense of priorities. The carjacker has already made the decision that he has no respect for your life or your property when he points a gun at you. How is he somehow morally superior here?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You don't answer to my first question. You answered : training and responsibilty are necessary. Right, everyone agrees. But my first question was : how the right to carry a gun can protect children from being shot BY CRIMINALS like happened in some schools.
One infrequently mentioned fact is that the school shooting in Pearl, Missisippi, by Kip Kinkel, a deranged student, was brought to a halt by a vice-principal who retrieved his handgun from his car in the parking lot, and held Kinkel at gunpoint until the police arrived.
Of course, they decided that was intolerable, so they passed the "Gun Free (Defenseless Victim) School Zone Act" so that the vice-principal would face felony charges if he had his gun in his car in the school parking lot. Can't have school shooting sprees rudely interrupted by armed good guys, now can we?
I'd much prefer to defend myself WITH a gun than WITHOUT one, whether it's from a knife or a gun.
I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed as well, but I'm not sure, since neither has ever happened to me.
Shit adds up at the bottom...
Amen, fellow American! A-f'ing-MEN!
Um, read your history. The only thing that kept the Japanese army from invading your AU was the US. If it wasn't for MacArthur and what troops he could organize together to reinforce the troops in New Guinea and orginze attacks on the south eastern flanks of the Japanese army, they would have rolled over AU. Heck, they almost did, not to belittle the contributions of the hundereds if not thousands of ANZACs who died in those mountains. Sorry to have to tell you that.
While your at it, explain why we have a Pearl Harbor day and not a Melborne day. The Japanese felt we were a great enough threat to have to send so many planes and carriers out to try to hurt us enough to keep us out of the game. Why not just bomb AU into dust first? Would make better sense, less front line to defend.
And if you want to discuss defense size, have you ever really looked at CINCPAC in a while? God, I feel like we are standing next to each other in a urinal comparing the size of our John Tomases.
Glad Now I have to be getting back to that recliner and CNN. Don't you have some crocodile to go chasing after?
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
[guns carried by police] are considered a "last resort" the idea is that if all other means fail than they can be used.
Same here in the US - both for police and for citizens.
In most states you can only shoot at the bad guy when your life is in immediate threat. (In a few places you can still shoot to stop him from running off with your stuff or to stop an attack on SOMEONE else. On the other hand, in some you must retreat unless you're unable to do so - even in your own home.) And while the rules are sometimes a little different for the police than for the citizens, the basic idea is usually the same.
Interestingly, if you compare shootings by US civilian and police, you'll find that the civilians are MUCH less likely to shoot somebody they shouldn't - by a factor of more than five. This despite the fact that civilians shoot more crooks than cops, by a factor of more than two.
(Which is not to say that US cops are incompetent trigger-happy bunglers. Police arrive on the scene of the dispute and have to figure out which of the combatants is the crook and which the victim, while the citizen under attack already knows. And citizens, once they've pulled the gun and stopped the attack, can (usually must) retreat when police are supposed to advance, subdue, and arrest.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I found this link to a report from the CDC. It makes a comparison of firearm and vehicle related deaths since 1968. It references a steady decrease in vehicle accident deaths with a steady increase in firearm related deaths and suggests the rates will flip flop with firearm deaths taking the lead by 2003. It makes a strong point that the vehicle related deaths have dropped because of numerous technical and systematic improvments to vehicle saftey (laws, roads, cars, etc) and notes the lack of these types of measures for firearms. I think you'll find it a good read. http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m00 23655.asp#Table_1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
the reason is the US went over there are TOOK their guns.
We reset their personal armament clock in a way that is never going to happen here.
That is EXACTLY right! Also, I once read that some CIA operatives were meeting with previous KGB-operatives, discussing the whole cold war thing. At one point, someone asked, "So, would you guys have incaded the U.S?". The KBG responded, "Hell no! There are too many guns in your country!"
Let's keep it that way!
BTW: This Australian guy is the stupidest idiot I have EVER read on ANY news thread, EVER! -> Keep going, man! I like it when idiots like you make the gun control freaks look like retards who could barely find their nose to pick for another opinion!
Whose ideal?
What I teach (and what the law actually says: see Tennessee v. Garner, California v. Glick, etc.) is that the use of force is justified to control a threat, and the amount of force to be used must be reasonable in light of the threat and the totality of the circumstances. You can't whack someone with a lead-filled flashlight for shoving you. The use of deadly force is ONLY justified (in Colorado, and this is consistent with Federal law) in the face of a threat of death or great bodily injury, or to prevent certain crimes (Rape, arson of an occupied building, armed robbery, and armed burglary)where a reasonable person would deem a lesser level of force to be insufficient to control the threat; or against an intruder of a dwelling who has entered unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime against person or property, and who uses or threatens force against any occupant.
As for this "last resort after ALL other options..." thank God the courts disagree. By your statement, should someone charge me with a knife, I would be required to verbally command him to stop, THEN attempt a control hold, THEN hit or kick him with empty hands, THEN use a baton or pepper spray, and ONLY THEN can I use lethal force.
Are you seeing the problem here? Let's say my assailant is seven yards away when he makes his first threatening move and I begin going up this ladder. I'll be dead from blood loss before I'm halfway through. That's why EVERY police academy and half-smart private instructor in the US teaches a continuum model: The defender (you) can enter the continuum at any level of force which is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances known to you at that time.
See Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5, both of which apply equally to the peace officer and the private citizen.
Unless you've had some training which you've not yet mentioned, I doubt you're qualified to have an opinion. You don't win friends by making tactical judgements if you've no real background in the subject. Watching "LAPD: Life on the Beat" doesn't count.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd say that carjackers' lives have a negative net value -- their actions result in more harm than they're ever likely to make up for.
Expensive sports cars, on the other hand, have obvious value.
But that's a logical accounting of the situation. I'm sure it'll come up different when values are assigned emotionally.
which, if my crappy american education serves, was a time when access to lethal weapons was restricted to the aristocracy.
can anyone clarify this?
women of this age group (under 40) are the most likely people to be victimized by a crime, especially a violent one.
NB: Overall, men are more often victims of violent crime. A US Dept. of Justice chart is at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm
Kids who play videogames kill people! Ladies, I'm talking to you.
Despite that both the US and Canada are more or less born at the same time, have the same founders (England and France), are similarly educated, share the same continent, there are some differences that might explain a few things:
There are 6 times more people in jail in the US than in Canada per capita.
The rich people in the US are very rich, and the poor way poorer
Canada has universal medical care
US has a strong history of slavery
One common theme on the above is the lack of compassion for those at the bottom of the society, maybe it's that attitude that explain in good part the much larger killing rate we see the US.
People that are hungry (not just for food) tend to be violent. The violence in Palestine/Israel will never be resolved for as long as their life remains as miserable. The same can be said for millions of American.
Someone mentioned that Switzerland has a lot of guns and little killing, and England has very restrictive gun but lots of killing. The amount of guns does not explain the killing, it's more that most in Switzerland are well off, and so many a so poor in England.
In a nation with 3.9 million that takes its heritage from England, it might be feasible to completely outlaw guns. Considering that the U.S. has 223 million lawfully possessed guns (Guns Used in Crime (1995) from National Institute of Justice) and a population of over 280 million, it is unlikely that the outlawing of guns will ever take place. Other small nation-states can feasibly have complete firearms prohibitions. Singapore, for instance. How cheeky that these are commonly of the British heritage, my dear chap! And no, I don't fondle mine at night...guns, that is!
freakin negroes go'n kill each other like they was some tribal clan back in afreeka. they act like damn savages, all dancing a jig to that rap music. goin keel each other, hell, more power to 'em. don't be comin in here white peoples' world and actin like y'alls goin to scare us. shit man. i got me a coon tag just waitin to fill it. take them damn nigger 'n spic killins out of the numbers, and you got us a right civilized society. sends 'em all back to where they come from.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).)
a il/-/0226 493644/qid=1039501591/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-170821 9-4420851?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
by John R., Jr. Lott
It's only $10 and is the only definitive research done by an unbiased party available.
Link to Amazon of course:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det
My opinion of the "Guns Kill People" theory. I have guns. I haven't killed anyone.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
deus does not exist but if he does
So what happens when congress passes a law defining the police bursting into your house in the middle of the night and taking everything you own without a whit of judicial oversight (i.e., a warrant) as a 'reasonable search'? Riiight.
This is a constitutional argument. Congress may enact laws within the framework of the constitution, but is not responsible for interpreting the constitution itself. In the example above, it isn't congress' responsability to interpret the constitution; the law would still be unconstitutional.
Your point is moot. It is the supreme court which makes the determination about how the militia clause in the second amendment should affect the amendment's interpretation, not Congress.
just wait until your population densities get high enough to make narcotics really profitable. Then the handguns will flow like wine. Into wrecked inner cities full of scared, angry, poor people.
> Between handcrafting, smuggling, police black-marketeering from the evidence locker, or what have you,
> individuals with no respect for the law will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have access to firearms.
This, of course, is bullshit.
I agree that a highly motivated criminal with access to significant resources will always have access to guns.
I simply wish to note that "highly motivated" and "access to significant resources" are not traits used to describe the vast majority of criminals.
If getting a gun becomes difficult, most criminals won't get guns. It's like the Great Wall of China - it wasn't there to keep barbarians out, just to make it a pain in the ass for them to sweep in, plunder, and drag their booty back. And just being a pain in the ass to criminals was apparently deterrent enough to justify building one of the largest constructions in human history.
A good case study would be South Africa. We have very strong gun control laws which have recently been made even stricter, but we have possibly the highest violent crime rate in the world.
In Russia, they have strict gun ownership and few persons have guns at home. This doesn't stop the Mafya from carrying weapons from handguns though AK47s though.
So the price of the guns has increased. You admit this would make it harder to obtain guns. This isn't an absolutist argument; we aren't saying that by making guns harder to aquire you're going to completely disarm the criminal element, but you are going to disarm some. And the harder you make it, the more criminals are disarmed. If you can't understand this, you really should take a course in basic economics.
The problem, of course, is that the supply of weapons used in crime is made up, in large part, from guns that were legally bought by law-abiding citizens, but then stolen. Every time your house gets robbed when your'e out and your hand-gun gets stolen, that's another gun in the hands of someone not very nice.
A good example of this is the UK. The UK is a pretty violent place these days, violent crime in general is higher per-capita than it is in the US (significantly higher, I believe). However, the murder-rate is still much lower. Hand-guns have always been difficult to acquire in the UK, consequently those that are available are pretty expensive and out of the reach of normal criminals. For the most part the gun violence has been limited to organized crime and drug-dealing, who are far too busy shooting each other than to engage in petty theft. Unfortunately, this is starting to slip, as the british customs are dropping the ball; the supply is increasing due to guns smuggled in from eastern europe.
Of course, an outright ban on hand-guns would do crazy things in the short-term (see Australia). It would take a long time for the markets to reach their new equillibrium after such a ban.
To make a long story short, I'll do a comparison. I'm from Brazil, gun control at its best. You need a license to own a firearm, you can only a certain number of them, and have to be of small caliber(.38 max) To get a license, you go thrugh a background check, safety class/test, shooting test, and a psycologycal test. Well....seems like paradise right? WRONG! Criminals are armed to the teeth, and worse....they're not afraid of the people or the cops...why? They know they cannot defend themselves! And because firearms are almos impossible to get legally, people can't do much to change it, and the bad guys profit from selling them in the "underground". The result is inocent people owning guns illegaly, illegal hunt is at its peak(since it is agains the law to even hurt any form of living creature...yes...even the flowers that grandma has), criminals armed better than the armed forces, and a population strugling with criminality rates higher than ever. I'll probably never use my firearm agains anyone....but just the fact I have them keeps a lot of people from "bugging" me. Just as a final word...in the us is against the law to drink under 21....in Brazil is not....I've never seen so many teenagers drunk as I've seen in the US. On the same way it fells important and cool to have a firearm in Brazil, it is cool to drink to show you're old to your friends....let it be free, and it does not becomes an issue anymore. Control guns....I don't think so....control the pople who own guns yes. you need a license to hunt, might as well get one to own a gun.
Before starting off on a gun debate, why not first ask "what is a gun?" Sounds silly, right? But seriously, there are a near infinite means of fashioning weapons easily capable of killing humans. So which of these counts as a "gun"? Is my paintball equipment a gun? It could certainly kill someone if I used marbles instead of soft paint pellets. How about a potato cannon loaded with a golf ball? Or a water baloon sling with a frozen baloon? Or the sling and rock David used to kill Goliath?
IIRC, a gun is legally defined as anything that rapidly accelerates a projectile along a guide using the rapid expansion of gases produced in a combustion reaction. That's a pretty limited definition considering all the many ways to harness kinetic energy as a weapon.
And outlawing / severely regulating such devices will do what good?? NONE
And then you get back to the Columbine nonsense, which the political left has milked for all it's worth in their typical knee-jerk ways. (not to say that the right doesn't employ equally stupid logic on other issues). Suppose the homemade bombs the killers had fashioned had gone off in the cafeterias? Hundreds of students would likely have died. So should we ban propane tanks to 'protect the children'?
So, fundamentally you're in favour of vigilantism?
So what happens if you miss the guy, and end up in a random gun fight in the middle of the street? How many people will you accidentally kill defending yourself from the crazed lunatic who has now turned his full attentions on you?
What happens when a similarly minded person sees you running up to someone randomly on the street and shooting him? I hope you don't mind when they blow your brains out; how were they supposed to know you weren't the killer, and were actually trying to save people? And how are you supposed to know this good samaritan isn't the first guy's buddy and end up in a gun-fight on the middle of a public street?
This is why this whole argument breaks down. All vigilantism does is create anarchy and chaos. If you want to save lives you should try to evacuate the area and call the cops. Let the guys with proper training and uniforms deal with the psycho.
And here's why... You're totally ignoring the category of 'Canadian'. Canadian != White. I know a lot of people who you would consider ethnic who fill out their census forms with Canadian.
One important point that Michael Moore missed, is that while Canadians [do] have a higher gun ownership per capita then the US, they are almost exclusively long guns
I've heard him mention that more than once while out promoting Bowling for Columbine.
.sig last updated March 9, 1894
>The kilogram is not a unit of pressure.
Or you could have said something on-topic such as:
"The people that this topic concerns are not Joe Sixpack with crappy firearms no aim, but rather those skilled individuals who would seek to cause harm with their firearms."
It's the people armed with tanks, attack choppers, F-whatever fighters and B-whatever bombers that matter.
The guys with firearms are fairly inconsequential. Especially if they don't have gas for vehicles - or vehicles at all - because they've all been blown up.
We have democracy because we can vote for change before we need to shoot people for it, and even if it came down to that, the people charged with doing the shooting, as you pointed out, would most likely refuse to carry out the order.
paintball
Try http://reason.com/bi/guns.shtml It's a summary of gun control articles from Reason Magazine which is a magazine associated with the Libertarian Party. It's usually pretty free from most the usual ideological biases you see in the mainstream media sources.
where the hell is my nigga comment? i posted, and y'all censor my speech. ya don'ts like the truth. well, why's don't ya take a look at the facts. dem nigz killin each other like they was some sort a an'mals. theys breedin like rabbits, and theyz got no 'bility to do nothing but steal, maim, kill, and rape. i ain't no racist, i just knows the facts as they is. white folks don't kill white folks same amount as theyz be kill'n each other. and they might sure as well be afreecin, but theyz sure hell ain't american. wantin togo back and all. parading around with thems funny clothes and hair. saying ameica is racist and shit. how bout they get thems a job and work for a change, steada milking off honest folks' tax money. get off yer ass and work.
An unbiased analysis is virtually impossible in this case. the only way this could happen is if you just go by the numbers, and as anyone who has take a statistics course can tell you, numbers lie. SO... onward with my biased viewpoint. I don't believe in gun control. I think people who are for gun control are afraid of guns I would equate this to being afraid of a snowblower. or a food processor. It is just a tool. So I pose this question, Are you afraid of a policeman? What about your Grandfather? Father? Uncle? Brother? Chances are at least one of your relatives, people you love and trust, now owns a gun or has in the past. Are they crazed murderers? probably not. most guns never kill anyone. most guns are never used, except in a recreational capacity. most guns that are used in the commission of a crime are stolen. The chances of gun control actually working in a free society is next to zilch. and it's pointless. criminals aren't going to merrily line up and hand in their guns. and even if there was some miraculous way to round them all up and take away their guns do you think it would stay that way? How many tons of illegal drugs cross the U.S. borders every year? you think a piece of metal would be harder to smuggle across than a brick of marijuana? There is a person in your town right now who would like nothing better than to rape your wife and daughter, kill you, and take your dvd player on the way out the door, and the only thing standing between him and you is the possibility of him hearing the sound of the action on a pump shotgun. If you don't believe me, I dare you to put up a sign in your front yard reading, "I ADVOCATE GUN CONTROL AND I'M PROUD TO BE UNARMED"
But hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe you'll write me off as some crackpot gun nut. Or maybe this Christmas when you are being robbed outside JC Penneys you'll wish someone would walk up and hand you a gun.
its da nigz. they are doin the kill'n.
IIRC (mentioned here on ./) it happened - some musiacians starved to death because they did not earn money for their music because it was widely exchanged on Napster.
(yes, I'm joking)
hany
Twaddle.
You can defend yourself "with reasonable force" here. Check the story last week of the grandfather who knifed and killed on burglar and wounded a second when they broke into his home.
He's walking around free today, no charges pending.
Gun crimes will happen LESS when guns are outlawed.
See Europe, in which all countries (AFAIK) have severly limited or banned gun ownership for non-professionals and death by weapons is far less common than in North-America and the States in particular.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Thinking about this issue rationally, I've come to the following stance:
Guns favor those who use them. Carrying a gun does not protect you against the person attacking you, because they will have their gun ready and armed. They can shoot you before you can even arm yours. Carrying an armed gun increases the risk that you will use it to shoot others in a wave of anger (yes, people do lose their minds when they get angry).
People have told me that criminals will carry guns no matter what the law says, and therefore, everybody should be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves. This argument is flawed on all sides. First, guns don't protect, see above. They may in some cases, but the main thing they do is lower the barrier for killing. Secondly, only a fraction of cirminals would carry guns if doing so was prohibited. Guns cost money, which is something most criminals lack, and if carrying guns is illegal, it will cost a lot of money and effort to get one, and increase the chances for criminals to be caught.
``Guns don't kill people, people do. If guns are outlawed, murderers will find other tools to do their job.'' This is definitely true, but doesn't really argue the case for guns. A murderer could use a knife to kill, but it's much harder; he'd have to be very close to the victim. He could run the victim over, but that makes him much more likely to be traced and caught. Guns are convenient, because they are small, work from a distance, and hardly leave any traces on the killer's side.
It is my opinion that guns do more harm than good, and should therefore be banned.
---
I am a criminal; I play DVD's on Linux.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Probably gather data and do your own analysis. That's what I do on hot-button issues.
Check with your local and state agencies and get thier data. Maybe some sociology journals. Also pick up some math books dealing with statistics.
Going with someone elses analysis on a subject like this usually(although not necessarily always) leads to finding data that has been skewed in one direction or another, depending on the persons pre-disposition.
This is a classic case of where we need to learn to ply our own reasoning skills rather than relying on what are often hyped or marginalized numbers.
"The only power any one of us has is the power to make up our own mind. Use that power, decide for yourself."(Starship Troopers. Ah the irony.)
McDoobie
To defend themselves?? They mean their police is not enough??
Come on, weapons' only function is killing...and killing is illegal. Ban weapons.
Yes i know, if i wanted to kill somebody i could find a way without a firearm, but its slower, and more difficult. Firearms are an easy way to kill. If you ban firearms, im sure half of those easy killings would stop.
I mean, i have felt sometimes rageous, and if i had a firearm, i don't know what i could have done, but i had nothing, so the only thing i could do was kick the other guys ass.
It's easy enough to kill nowadays, why make it easier allowing firearms??
I recently watched Bowling for Columbine. I think that all Americans should be made to watch this movie. I think that the soundbyte has killed a lot of people in America. When you are afraid that the black/white/red elements of the community are armed and dangerous, it may seem like a good idea to arm yourself and your family. If we are convinced that the nasty people not only have hand guns but may also have assault weapons, we may just want to have a few anti-tank missiles, "just in case". .50 Cal rifle. I doubt however that there can be any sane reason to also have 3000 rounds of .50 ammo for this weapon.
I am a brit, a former sniper and come from a family with a long history of military service. I live in Germany, and work in Europe. I do not have any wish to own a gun. I dont have a problem with other people having guns. I think that wherever you are in the world, you should be required to provide a reason for your gun ownership. I can understand that a farmer who needs to deal with rat/rabbit problems should be allowed to have a shotgun. A simple side-by-side ought to do the trick. An 8-shot automatic is however over the top. Hunting dear with 5.56mm sounds about right. Using a water-cooled belt-fed weapon could just be a sign of your psycosis. Equally, there ought to be some form of control over the quantity and type of ammo that is kept with the weapon. You may possibly be able to come up with some special reasons about why you have to own a
Assume that you are a really bad shot. Assume that you are so bad that you only hit the target with one in five shots. If we allow you to have 50 bullets, you could shoot 10 deer. That ought to be enough deer. I would however wonder about where the other 40 shots went, and may want to restrict your ownership on the basis of ability.
What reason can you give for the ownership of guns?
What reason can you give for the ownership of more than one weapon?
How many rounds of ammo can you justify owning?
Personally, I just don't like guns, so you could say I'm bias
I do however like swords, so I can understand who gun owners would feel if guns were banned.
One of the main reasons I hear for guns is hunting for sport. This I do not consider a good excuse; shutting a deer w/ a high powered rifle from a mile away is not a spot, its a slotted. You wana hunt? Take a bow n' arow and a hunting knife...that takes skill...
I wouldn't say guns should be illegal, however, when I was 11 or 12 one of my friends went to a gun show and bought a hand gun. I latter convinced him to barry it. However, there is something wrong in a country where a kid can by a firearm...
On the other hand, my brother(13 years) recently bought a sword at a medieval fair. Guns may be the fastest way to kill, but they aren't the only way.
Altimentaly anything can be used as a weapon, you could kill w/ your fists but not many would say they should be band
as many others have said here, violence is a social problem, just like piracy over P2P networks, the tools are irrelevant.
Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
To defend themselves?? They mean their police is not enough??
Come on, weapons' only function is killing...and killing is illegal. Ban weapons.
Yes i know, if i wanted to kill somebody i could find a way without a firearm, but its slower, and more difficult. Firearms are an easy way to kill. If you ban firearms, im sure half of those easy killings would stop.
I mean, i have felt sometimes rageous, and if i had a firearm, i don't know what i could have done, but i had nothing, so the only thing i could do was kick the other guys ass.
It's easy enough to kill nowadays, why make it easier allowing firearms??
Arrrgh, you guys are ALL WRONG, its:
p = m*v
that does the killing.... geeeeez!!!!
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
I would say a bit of both. If guns wouldn't exist, people would kill people with other means. But guns make it easier to kill people, what's easier, shoot a guy or chop him with a axe or something...
And how about accidents? Every now and then we hear about hunters that shoot eachother, children playing with guns, etc...
And in this sniper case, he fragged a lot of people with his fancy weapon, how many could he have killed WITHOUT any firearm?
Doesn't seem like anybody actually LOOKED UP any of their facts...
Some interesting FACTS from http://www.cdc.gov/
1980
ages 24-44 Rank and Number of deaths
Ranked 1 - Unintentional injuries 26,722
Ranked 9 - Homicide 10,983
Ranked 5 - Suicide 9,855
2000
Ranked 1 - Unintentional injuries 27,182
Ranked 4 - Suicide 11,354
Ranked 6 - Homicide 7,383
This is stupid, we really need to get rid of all those "dangerous" swimming pools that kill all those kids, and sharp rakes that people fall all in their lawns... Suicide is now a bigger problem than murder....
Also, if you use some common sense here, even if 75% of all the murders were commited with a gun,(which I think is even a high percentage) unitentional injuries kill 5 times that many people and suicide over twice that number. Where is the outcry against depression and accidents?
13.9 deaths per 1,000 live births...
1998 - Abortions in US - 26.4 per 100 births ( insane percentage compared to any other form of death... )
26.4% of all US (un)born citizens don't even make it out of the hospital...plenty of outcry here...
Birth deaths
1950 - US - 32.5 deaths per 1,000 live births
2000 - US - 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births
Mothers who smoked during pregnancy - Birth deaths.
2000 - US - 12.2 deaths per 1,000 live births
By these numbers it should be against the law to smoke while you are pregnant...
Cocaine-related emergency department episodes, 2000 - 174,881
24 times that of homicides... how many of these will ultimately end in death?
Here'S where the statistics get messed, you figure it out...maybe I am just bad at math...
DEATH RATES (hispanic) ages 25-44
Homicide - US - 2000 - 6.1 per 100,000
Deaths by Firearms - US - 2000 - 13.5 per 100,000
I have no opinion on gun control, as I don't believe in shooting anyone myself, but I also don't believe in getting shot myself... But do some research on old England, I do believe the "long bow" was what ultimately made Britain a democratic country, not anything like a perfect King...
-v
Read the Federalist Paper and all of you Constitutional questions will be answered by Jon Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.
I dare you to find abetter scholers on the constuition!
Pertinax
- Most people wouldnt trust their neighbors enough to lend them your favorite fishing rod (for the sake of an example).
- The reason is that you dont think they will be careful enough to return it in one piece.
- The truth is, as the Dilbert Principle states, everyone is a moron, you neighbor too.
- If my neighbor is not responsible enough to take care of my fishing rod, I dont think he can handle guns either. What if one day he gets angry and come home to shoot me.
- I wouldnt like my neighbor to have guns. And my neighbos wouldnt like me to have them either.
America. That is why I left and live now in Germany. Even the few skinheads I met that harassed me about being a foreigner were a lot friendlier than your average stranger in America. Imagine that. When you look at america from the outside you really notice how violent and twisted it is. Guns or no guns.
But when I go back to visit I notice a lot of guns. There are not too many to see here in Germany (A Schützenfest is always a fun cultural experience however) but when I'm in America I notice them everywhere. Cops, Guards, Gunracks, retail stores, Gun stores especially in economically depressed areas right across from liqour stores down the block from a school. No wonder so many people from poor neighborhoods are killed from gun violence. The laws that allow this to happen are practically an invitation to kill each other. But I rant. sorry.
As far as finding unbiased information about gun statistics, good luck. Your gonna have to do the research and data sifting yourself to find your own conclusions.
You might get better replies at Kuro5hin, which is a discussion site. You won't get the same responses of "what does this have to do with a Beowulf cluster" there.
How many people do you know that practice knife throwing?
Even then, you would have be a pretty damn good knife thrower to get a moving target the size of a neck.
We have must stricter gun control laws out there.
And as everyone knows, Europe is just awash with crime. Its on the headlines everydays.
[ Sorry I forget not applicable to the USA, there are still ferocious indians to be contained there ]
1. Ban the importation or manufacture of illegal narcotics except by those used by licensened pharmacutical companies.
2. Make private ownership or use of illegal narcotics a felony. Fuck the amnesty. Destroy or conviscate any illegal narcotics found in private hands. Pay people a bonus for being a narc.
3. Arrest anyone with illegal narcotics who's got any and isn't a licensed distrubituor.
Yep.. that works real fucking well. I can point out a half dozen in my neighborhood who deal drugs.
--Demonspawn
How many bullets in the average gun? What about aiming for the body, only 5 meters away?
1.5kgs isn't that much compared to the amount of effort required for the other ways (stabing, punching etc).
redshift-systems wrote:
The majority of your (Americans)population would not even know what the Capital of Canada is.
Actually, according to a study I read few weeks ago 40% of americans didn't know where Washington is. (some 800 people 17...25 of age where questioned)
BTW: Am I the only one, but those americans that talk about the superior military power and world defending and freedom are starting to sound just like little Hitlers...
No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Robbery, assault,
burglary and motor vehicle theft rates are lower
in the United States than they are in England and
Wales, national crime victim surveys conducted in
these countries reveal. However, police
statistics show murder and rape rates higher in
the United States than in England and Wales,
according to a new report by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) in the United States Department
of Justice.
This says to me that you might have a higher chance of being victim of a violent crime in the UK, but you're more likely to be killed or raped in the process in the US.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Secondly, only a fraction of cirminals would carry guns if doing so was prohibited.
Since England banned handguns, Scotland Yard has admitted that prohibition has done nothing to keep the criminals from obtaining them. It's easier than ever, and the London crime rate is suddenly higher than New York City.
A murderer could use a knife to kill, but it's much harder; he'd have to be very close to the victim.
Some interesting research showed that even if handguns were completely wiped out, criminals would simply carry long (hunting) guns or knives (that part's obvious). Probably more knives and fewer guns because of concealability. The unobvious part is the fact that a long gun is far, far more deadly than a handgun, which wipes out any life savings from those who would have used less-effective knives instead.
It is my opinion that guns do more harm than good, and should therefore be banned.
In the U.S., that annoying right of the people to keep and bear arms gets in the way.
Quite a few years ago, one of my female friends had an abusive and aggressive ex-boyfriend. She asked me to stay with her for a few days and bring my gun along. This was back when California had a law that said that if one shoots an intruder who broke in, that the shooter would be presumed innocent.
He started beating and kicking on the door about 3 days later. I came up and aimed my gun at the door. He ran away and called the police.
I and my friend described the circumstances to the policewoman, who got a good laugh out of the fact that the guy was stupid enough to call.
She had no further problems with the guy.
Presumably, the anti-gun crazies around here would consider that my interference with the guy's 'right' to beat the shit out of a woman using an evil GUN!!! makes me an evil person. I've actually seen people take that position when I (rarely) mention this in public. This is useful, though, I know a few more people to hold in utter contempt and not to do business with.
It also puts me in a position to say I've used a gun to deter violence.
Unfortunately, the law was repealed a few years later by the California State Supreme Court.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Very few people are interested in any truth when it comes to fire arms. 95% of the comments are smart ass remarks and severely biased opinions. Pro-gun want no restrictions. Anti-gun want no guns. Neither is reasonable or based in reality. Personal responsibility is what we should be worried about. Those who think only the police should have the weapons forget that the "specially trained" police are just regular people. There's nothing unique about them. So there is no reason to take away the right to own firearms from the majority of poeple that obey the laws and behave properly. A firearm in itself can do no harm, it takes a person, and it's those who step over the line that need to be delt harshly with, and we do in this country. (I personally like Florida's law. Use a gun in a crime get a mandatory 10 years, point it at someone it's now 20, actually shoot someone it's 30+.) The United States has over 50,000 people killed a year by firearms, but what the statics don't tell you is that the entire 50,000 were not all murders. A large portion were police officers and normal citizens doing their duty to protect themselves and those around them. On the other hand a large portion were, but taking away the firearms just treats the symptoms and doesn't create a permanent solution. Look at England, they've removed the firearms, but their crime rate is going through the roof. Maybe not firearm killing, but everything else is rapidly increasing. The increase in crime points to a deeper problem, that firearms have nothing to do with, personal responsibilty and a strong sense of right and wrong. An individual who does not have these things has no business owning a firearm. Automobiles are far more dangerous to children than firearms, but you don't see the liberal left screaming for a 7-day cooling off period on SUV's and mandatory safety training. (A driver's test is pathetically easy.) We don't hear about restictions on owning pets (though that's changing) when we have to "put to sleep" hundreds of thousands every year do to abandonment. When children commit horrible crimes the parents always say, "but they were such a good kid how could that happened?" It all boils down to personal responsibility. Find out how to measure that, and punsih or restrict those that lack it, then many of our problems, especially those that involve firearms will go away. Catch these individuals early on in life and start taking away the rights that they cannot or will not handle. Firearm ownership is the big one, let's not forget access to alcohol or the right to operate an automobile, and yes even having children. A person that is not responsible enough to properly take care of, store, or use an inanimate object has no business being in charge of a human life.
Americans aren't a race.
Even in places where all guns were seized during insurrections, people even made their own guns. As we've seen with drugs, if the people want them, they'll get them. And all the government can do is make the problem worse by banning them. The best the government can do is very harsh penalties for misuse that directly harms another.
In the end, no it doesn't depend on a militia:Especially important was that it is an assumed right inherent of the people. It was not thought that the Constitution was granting this right, but prohibiting the government from infringing on an established one.
"What happened to just plain crazy?"
We have to blame guns, video games, TV, etc. Whiney, whiney, whiney, no one's ever responsible for thier own actions. What ever happened to the idea that these kids were just off their collective rockers?
Actually, our violence and crime rates are far higher than those countries aside from guns. Other countries have approximately the same ownership rates as us (aside from Switzerland, where ownership is militia-based), but with far lower crime rates.
I agree with your paraphrase, although I would say something more like:
Because a militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Alot closer to the original wording..
Shit adds up at the bottom...
me thinks your nation learned about violence more from the indian wars and the civil war than anything else, which says a lot to me about why yours is such a violent country.
I think this comment alone should be reason enough to remove someone's firearms.
Friend, you are unstable and should not be allowed near anything that could allow you to harm yourself or others. Seek help!
If your first reaction to any problem is to reach for your gun then you, sir, are the problem! The solution is (as is often the case!) obvious, but maybe unpalatable for some. Luckily, the ones for whom it is the most unpalatable are the ones who most surely need to be disarmed first!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
I admit that I have a certain love for that piece of metal which projects pieces of metal at high velocity, the problem we have here (Well, over in the US as I am in Scotland) is that (and I am sure this has been said man times already - to many posts!) guns are objects. They are not evil or good, they have no intrinsic ability to recognise and differentiate between who they are being pointed at. A gun cannot say to its self, "Oh, I am in the arms of a young child who is playing with me, I had better not blow their head off!" People, us, you and me are the only ones who have the choice of wither we pull that trigger and how we use the gun in the first place. I have no problem with guns, I have a problem when people point a gun (for ANY reason) at anything that is alive. What we have hear is the same problem we have had for millennium. Humans have an extreme tendency towards violence and hence when we hold in our hands an item which can kill someone we are angry with in a second then the rage takes over, the pain and agony flood over out common sense. We kill, we pull that trigger and BLAM, the bullet ends that other person's life. The truth, the only inescapable truth guns may kill but they are not the ones who are in control, we are, and as such it only ourselves that we have to blame. So should we control guns? Yes, the same way we that we control bombs, landlines, and other weapons of mass destruction? Funny though I don't think Bush would be want to wage a war on this subject? Not a good political move. Just some thoughts. No insult or offence attended.
How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.
I was always afraid to come to North America, but now I am sure. You're all a bunch of finatical lunies.
I like my hunting rifles to have precision. I wouldn't buy a sniper rifle simply because they generally cost five-figures, with ammo also costing too much. But if you're a rich and like to hunt or go to the extreme with target practice, why not?
Is there a link between peoples perception of position within society that contries murder rate? It seems to me that many Americans fall through the system and struggle to survive on a daily basis. This is much less likely to occur in Europe and Australia where there are sometimes very generous welfare systems. Maybe people in these contries feel that they are still worth something to society and that society is willing to help them. I know this is not the American way where it is effectivly "every man for himself". America has higher rates of homelessness, extreme poverty and susstance abuse then most other industrialized contries. Arent these indications of people and societies that don't care for one another.
I also find it strange that Americans need the right to own firearms to over throw a government. Surely if you need to overthrow a government the fact that they have or haven't given you the right to use firearms is irrelevant.
"Oh, damn, I want to shoot 30 bullets at these people, but I'm limited to a 10-round mag instead of the normal 15-rounder. I guess I'll have to take two seconds more swapping magazines."
If I really wanted to kill as many people as possible, I'd be throwing molotov cocktails into crowded places. Some would burn to death, some would be scarred for life, and some would die in the resulting stampede.
I'm very disturbed I came up with that idea. Must be GTA Vice City kicking in.
Stop the brainwash
Maybe the problem is that most studies concentrate on the guns themselves rather than looking at the bigger picture? One of the points that stuck with me after seeing BFC was the US media's hyping of violent crime. If people are made to think they live in a dangerous environment they are likely to react accordingly, reguardless of whether there is a real threat.
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
Does not establish a right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes that the people have a previously existing moral right to do so, and prevents the government from infringing upon that right.
In Australia we can still own firearms, but they are heavily restricted since a person who was legally mentally ill got hold of several semi-automatic weapons and killed 35 people in a tourist town.
After this occured Semi-Automatic and Automatic firearms were confiscated in a "buy back" scheme.
A few months ago, an Asian man took 7 legally owned handguns to a university and went postal.
Now our government is planning a handgun buyback. I dont agree with these gun-control laws as I think they are a bit excessive. But clearly the mentally ill man should not have been able to buy several high powered semi automatic rifles. And I'm not sure about the recent handgun guy needing 7 handguns.
I agree with a man having a right to own a weapon, but some restrictions are needed (to stop nutcases and criminals having easy access to weapons.) I even wish my government hadn't been so heavy handed with confiscating powerful weapons from its citizens. To our north are a lot of overcrowded countries looking at Australia (with similar landmass to America but only 18 million people). Our army isn't going to manage much, we dont have enough bullets in our country to shoot every man in the Indonesian army even once. But a gorilla army might help while we wait for the US and UK to come bail us out.
Maybe if the NRA went back to its grassroots of premoting responsible and safe gun ownership, and say, it was illegal to own a firearm unless a member of the NRA or some kind of organisation offering courses in safety then the situation in America wouldn't be so out of hand.
Going on about how you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands like Charlton Heston doesn't really make the NRA and pro-gun owners look like responsible, clear minded people which I am sure a majority are...
And I think that has something to do with the 11,000 or so firearm deaths on American soil each year, when other western countries struggle to break 100
...my two cents
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
I keep seeing a lot of statistics quoted like "In the US crime has gone down while handgun ownership has gone up". These may be two perfectly valid statistics, but that doesn't mean they're related. The number of MacDonalds has gone up as well, does that mean they reduced crime?
Crime is affected by a multitude of factors. To pick one factor, notice a correlation and say "X causes crime" is nice and catchy, likely to get headlines, but just plain wrong. X and Y may be correlated but that doesn't mean X causes Y.
You can compare Switzerland to the US, talk about levels of crime and gun ownership, and it will be totally meaningless. The societies are chalk and cheese with different history, demographics, politics, even geography. Likewise with Canada, the UK or Australia. To meaningfully compare, you'd need thousands of factors not to mention the expertise to understand them. This means the answer will never be as easy as "do this and this will happen". It makes drawing conclusions much harder. There's no easy answer. That's life.
When I researched this an interesting stat I found was that while violent crime rates are much higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, the suicide rate is much lower. That's why you don't see any arguments about guns causing more successful suicides, which would be the logical extension of the argument that guns cause more homicides of passion.
check out frontsite. they don't have much statistical information on the site, but their link section has a number of sites that might have more information.
and on the topic of guns, the philosophy of their organization is also worth the read in and of itself.
Well at gatwick airport they seem to be a specialty, getting hundreds of thousands/millions of pounds of foreign currency. :-(
..censor guns, not boobies!
Yeah right go ahead and mod him down because he's too pacifist oder - god forbid - liberal (which somehow has turned into a bad word). Go America, go! Btw.: the moderation system wasn't intended to mod down politically unpopular opinions but instead to look at the quality of the posts. Which means just because you don't agree with something you shouldn't mod it down per default. Read the fucking guidelines!
There's a fair bit there - you have to search around a bit, and not all the content is free, but in summary -
Between 1993 and 2001- - while the number of victims of murder has increased slightly from 296 to 306, as a rate per 100,000 population there has been a slight decrease from 1.7 to 1.6 victims;
- while the proportion of robberies where a weapon was used in 1993 and 2001 was similar (42%), the use of firearms has declined both in actual numbers (from 1,983 down to 1,686) and as a proportion of all robberies (from 16% to 6%);
You can start here:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/e 8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/76c8926bd8a12e1fca 2568a9001393f2!OpenDocument
says that CONGRESS shall make no law with respect to guns. It is reserved to the states. That means that if Utah wants to mandate gun ownership for every non felon adult, Congress should have no say, and if Massachusets outlaws guns entirely congress should have no say. It should be a state by state issue.
no big sig
FIRST_P0ST!!!!!!!.... uhm... hrm
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Banning guns is such a hot issue... Just ban IDIOTS. Get rid of idiots and the problems will go away. Incidentally, if you manage to rid America of Idiots, there won't be any guns.
All opposed to the hope that he isn't going to kill her anyway, by blunt trauma, knife, strangulation etc - all methods where bodily strength and size is a benefit.
The gun has been called the great equalizer. Why? Long story, and not needed here, but essentially it levelled the playing field. Any idiot could now kill the greatest swordsman alive with one shot. Imagine: devoting your life to the study of swordplay, mastering that skill, and now, you're in a fight with an old out of shape, unskilled, uncoordinated idiot with a hand-cannon. Ack! Or, imagine being the intellectual, uncoordinated, 110 lbs. wet good-guy with a sword you can barely lift, not to mention swing hard, confronting the two-handed sword-wielding , 220 lb. all-muscle bad-guy. Think Conan gone bad. Now give yourself a shotgun... There's a nice symbolism here also: our constitution levelled the playing field among the classes; any person fresh off a boat could accomplish almost anything, and often did. Jud.
>Gun crimes will happen LESS when guns are outlawed.
>See Europe, in which all countries (AFAIK) have severly limited or banned gun ownership for non-professionals and
>death by weapons is far less common than in North-America and the States in particular.
Really? You should look at England where since the total ban the crime rate has skyrocketed. Infact the per capita rate of crimes involing guns is higher than in the states.
Then how about the Swiss nearly every household has a full auto gun. This is because every of age male is in the reservers. They have very low crime rates.
etc.
I'll grant you that copyright violation is not the same as violent crime. Regardless, the principal of gun ban and the banning of software simply because it MIGHT be used to commit a crime by any given user is the same. You can dress it up in shades of gray, but at the end of the day, the justification of taking rights away from citizens is the same:
You shouldn't have _______ (fill in the right) because it could be used to ____________ (name the crime).
You missed the point of my original post - the horse is already out of the barn. People already have guns. Banninging them several hundered years later is ridiculous. Also - do you think someone who is about to commit a crime is worried about the legality of owning/possessing/using a firearm of any kind?
$G
-- $G
Yes they are, Mexicans, Indians etc. We need to stop this ridiculous idea that "America" somehow consists solely of the USA. Just because those dumb-asses couldn't think of a real name for their country, certainly doesn't give them dibs on the name of 2 continents.
Aren't we all so terribly glad this became a place to pick the crap out of each other's countries' teeth?
The guy wanted a comentary on Gun Laws, not why Americans suck (We don't), not why the Europeans couldn't defend themselves in either of their 20th century bloody confrontations (a great point, I might add, we were isolationist till WWI), or why Japan decided to pick on the Big Dog instead of Australia, who did infact play a role in WWII even though they really didn't have to; although so did South Africa, and so did Canada.
Why do we have to bicker about which country is better, why people kill people, and why jerks who won't pay attention to laws will continue not to pay attention to laws even when the people who pay attention to laws have already gotten used to pay attention.
And I wouldn't be anonymous if I could remember my password.
~EVHagar5150
No it doesn't sound funny. But it does sound like a dumb reply (although i'll give you this: handling a gun with _one_ hand is even more stupid). Gun control is the control over the dispearsion of guns. It works like this: less guns -> less people get killed by guns / more guns -> more people get killed by guns. Simple eh?
Why I got modded "Offtopic." The comment was supposed to allude to dyslexia.
Really? You should look at England where since the total ban the crime rate has skyrocketed. Infact the per capita rate of crimes involing guns is higher than in the states. Yeah, and the rates for murder are over 5x as high in the states as in the UK, according to the American Department of Justice ( find the link in one of the other comments ). Then how about the Swiss nearly every household has a full auto gun. This is because every of age male is in the reservers. They have very low crime rates. Yeah, and as another poster pointed out, they have to account for every single bullit the have. Also, this means that only trained military men have a gun, not any idiot like in the states. My point is, if you have more guns, as in the States, you'll have more death by guns. I'm not really interested in the crime rates, I don't believe anyone deserves to die for a crime, punished yes, die no.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Less guns => less people get killed by guns.
Call me a troll but some people really need to be told the obvious truth now and then.
You are well and truly deluded my old son.
While I don't expect that you will read this ( typical cowardice behavior, throw stones then run to hide.. ) it does warrant comment.
First of all Sir, you are the root of the problem. If you were responsible and protected your family, many of the oppressive government and rampant crime around the world would never have had a chance to take hold and prevail..
It is the people that do not stand up for their rights and safety that facilitate these things and continued denial only compounds the issues.
That being said, you DO have the right to not feel that your family is worth protecting, and toss control to whom ever shows at the door demanding it.
However you DONOT have the right to tell me that I cant protect myself or my family, which is a core issue in gun 'control' (actually the goal is gun ban. Not control, an example of more cowardice, by hiding ones agenda).
Nor should you expect people like me to come to your rescue when you are repressed and realize your errors and wish you had stood up for safety and freedom.
Incidentally I happen to agree with your statement that someone breaking into my home doesn't warrant lethal force. However, if they threaten me or my family in the process, it DOES warrant such action..
PS: One also should not presume something because the word GOD is mentioned. God comes in many shapes and forms, and doesn't mean that one is of any belief or denomination.. Sounds a bit prejudicial to me.. Much as your lumping me and others of like mind into some fanatical group that advocates wholesale violence or something, due to your narrow minded concepts and beliefs.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the world is a bad place so I need a gun to protect myself
lets make the world a safer place in which to live
I've seen lots of comments in this forum arguing that Good Guys need guns, Women need guns etc.etc. But no one is arguing that what is actually needed is a safer society then no one would need a gun.
Several years ago hand guns were banned in the UK, of course some of the Criminals still have guns, but now it is significantly more difficult to acquire/own/carry a gun. I would hate to be so scared (paranoid?) in my own home, or on the street, that I thought I needed to carry any type of weapon. I'd want to move...
Art is the mathematics of emotion
So how do you envision this? Someone steps into your bedroom with a gun and points it at you. "Give me your money", he/she shouts. You get out of bed, walk to your dresser, open it, pull out the box with the gun. You then get the other box with your bullets, open it, get out a couple of bullets. You then load up your gun, close it, switch the safety. Point it at the thug and yell: "Freeze!!! Buster".
NPR's "On the Media" did a report on this "documentary". Summary: Moorse plays fast and loose with the facts.Check here in the "More Accurately" section.
Also, this site has a LOOOONG list of inaccuracies in the "documentary".
Just for accuracies sake.
-bk
This was a factual error in Michael Moore's documentary. Canadians have one third the number of guns per capita as our neighbours to the south. I checked this with official stats months ago when the movie came out, but I'm afraid I don't have URL for you. Anyone who really cares about what the truth is, though, will discover that only Michael Moore has claimed Canadians have more guns, and he is wrong.
As for Canadian gun violence, it is much lower than even what the 30% rate of gun ownership would suggest, but you can draw your own political conclusions I don't have a dog in this fight I just don't like yet more misconceptions being spread about Canadians.
I never understood why all fuss about interpereting "what the 2nd Amendment really means". PA constitution has it clear as day:
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Would anyone in the anti-gun (not sure what the PC name is) movement please refute?
As usual everyone gets hyped about this issue for the wrong reasons...
Does anyone know the REAL reason the second amendment exists?
Its for public protection but not from criminals.
(Hint: What is responsible for the most deaths throughout history?
The answer is not crime, war or corporations it is GOVERNMENT.
Once the populace has no guns, the government no longer governs, it rules.
:)- Good job, Hammerhead - Dead link. That does appear to at least be Austalian.
In the United States, our laws have to pass Constitutional muster. It is (and espectially the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments) the last safeguard of the rights of the people against the government. Any reading of the constitution that weakens any one of those rights weakens all of them. So a reading that the second amendment does not keep the government from restricting guns also allows for a reading that restricts the 1st amendment. I am not sure I like the 2nd amendment, but I am certain I don't want to set a precedent that the courts have the right to weaken it. We do have a means of changing the constitution, but frankly I am wary of changing the Bill of Rights as well - they may not be sacrosanct, but if might be wise to treat them as such. Historically giving government more power is like a precipitant reaction in chemistry - it only goes one way.
Even my wheelchair bound Uncle could protect himself from not just one strong young thug, but from several. And it is comforting to know that I don't have to be with my 75 year old Mother all the time to know she is safe. Smith and Wesson are very good bodyguards of the infirm.
Really cute. Any sensible Libertarian would tell you to go fuck yourself.
If I remember right, they didn't have anywhere near the hardware the American military had, and the Yanks still got their asses kicked. Not that using an army of slaves (drafted soldiers) helped much.
I first would like to agree to the comments, that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun violence as Switzerland seems to show.
But: Many people, especially gun advocats miss an important point. You can't protect yourself with a gun. A gun can't catch a bullet or knife. Only if the bullet or knife accidently hit the steel part of the gun and bounce off in a safe direction. Much better would be a bulletproof west if you want protection.
Deterence is another thing. But any gun introduced into a conflict (were deterence is needed) raises the conflict to a potentially deadly level. A gun draws fire. If a person feels threatened by a gun and knows that he/she can loose their life they will do anything to remove that threat. That means that a gun actually makes you unsave, because it draws on violence. If the other side has a gun or any other deadly force available against you they are most likely to use it as soon as you threaten their most precious asset. Their life.
But it is such a cool, macho thing to draw a gun, ain't it?
Slashdot: News for rednecks. Stuff that makes ya' Holler.
I dislike when people complain "waaa waaa waaa, this shouldn't be posted on slashdot, it's not news for nerds," but I'm human, damnit... I have the inborn right to be hypocritical.
I don't give half a shit about gun control, except that it is more attempts to take away our rights (not that I think anyone actually needs a gun -- especially the police, but that's not the point) Gun control is one of those back & forth issues that will not be unanimously "solved" quickly.
Hell, I might as well Submit an article entitled "Ask Slashdot: So, what do y'all think about that abortion thing?"
The UK has less murders in a year than several, if not most, US Cities. The proportion of these which are gun related is small.
So yes the number in the UK has been increasing. But Washington is still more dangerous to live in than Northern Ireland, even back when the troubles were in full sway.
The numbers in the US are falling from a level that was MORE in some cities than when several TERRORIST organisations were shooting each other for fun. Not for the whole US, for ONE city.
If a crimial commits a gun-crime in the UK he will be much more of a focus for the police than if he doesn't use a gun. Thus using guns is the best way to get caught.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
In Britain, we have outlawed the majority of firearms, any firearms that are legally kept are licensed (for pest control, hunting, etc) or contained strictly for training purposes on a range.
However, outside of this there are a large number of illegal firearms which continue to be brought in to the country. These guns come into the country from places where there are lax gun controls, usually by boat into. It is impossible for us to check every man / woman / child / aircraft / boat or other vehicle which approaches upon our borders. If more countries did the right thing and controlled firearms, then we would have alot less deaths.
Alot of the gun supporters in America complain that while we have locked down the control of guns, we still have high numbers of murders (or homicides if you prefer) which are gun related.
I've heard alot of people use the saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people", I find no merit in that statement, it's true that a gun needs to be operated (handled or mishandled) by a person, but the gun is certainly an effective tool which makes the job of killing alot easier, after all, that is what a gun is designed for "to kill", in the same way that a bomb is designed "to kill" even if a controlled explosion does make an impressive display of destruction, the primary function of the device is still to kill, you dont see alot of people carrying around bombs for "their protection" do you?
A gun is a weapon designed for death, if you live in the country, hunt for your own food and tend your own table, you have cause to have a fire arm for use to assist you in your need for survival.
If you live in a city, there is nowhere to hunt, you dont need to carry a weapon into a supermarket so you can kill your own chicken, if your carrying a firearm in a city, you have it for the purpose of killing or maiming another human being (whether you beleive it to be in self defence or not) and by carrying it you have justified to yourself that it is ok to do that.
While you Americans may say that you keep a gun for defending your property and your home, what good is your property or your home if youare not alive to enjoy it? In this country, the majority of thieves do not carry guns, they dont need to because no law respecting household keeps such a weapon, if someone breaks in it is more likely to happen when you are not at home, in the unlikely event that you are in the house, you may lose some of your belongings, but when are belongings worth losing life over? I would prefer to keep my life rather than protect a family heirloom.
Despite attacks on his scholarship, professor defends `Gun Culture' book
BY RON GROSSMAN
Chicago Tribune
ATLANTA - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - One thing for sure, Michael Bellesiles is a professor who believes in sticking to his guns.
A year ago, his book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," won the Bancroft Prize, the most coveted award in the field of American history. But once critics began checking the footnotes, his career imploded.
Last May, the National Endowment for the Humanities ordered the Newberry Library to take the federal agency's name off the grant enabling Bellesiles to spend a sabbatical year at the Chicago institution. Emory University, his home base, appointed a blue-ribbon panel of outside academics to investigate, and its recently released report pronounced Bellesiles "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work."
The Bellesiles affair is one of a series of similar episodes to rock the normally tranquil halls of ivy. The popular historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose were accused of plagiarism. Author Joseph Ellis was suspended by Mt. Holyoke College for telling tall tales about himself in his history classes.
But Bellesiles' situation is unique: He was charged not with plagiarism, but with making up his sources and the data backing his assertion that gun ownership was rare on the early American frontier. Also, while the others confessed and apologized, he steadfastly maintains his scholarship is sound.
"I was absolutely shocked!" he said of the committee's report in what may have been his first interview since leaving Emory. "Obviously, they were very angry at me."
He was sitting in a coffee shop across town from Emory. Since resigning his professorship last month, Bellesiles has avoided the university's Atlanta campus. He doesn't want to present former colleagues with the embarrassing choice of either lowering their eyes or saying hello to a pariah, he explained. He has also avoided the media.
Bellesiles said he decided to resign after hearing rumblings the university planned to demote him in rank.
"That would have been an affront to my honor," said Bellesiles, 48.
Indeed, his boyish, clean-cut appearance and straightforward demeanor seem to belie the academic high crimes and misdemeanors of which he has been adjudged. Listening to him, it is momentarily tempting to think that his version of the story - Bellesiles sees himself as the victim of an intellectual lynching - might somehow be true, for all its implausibility.
From the moment it was published, Bellesiles' book drew far greater attention than most academic works, as it and he were swept up in sweep into America's bitter debate over gun control.
His thesis contradicted Charlton Heston and the organization he heads, the National Rifle Association, who claim that guns are like apple pie and mom, so linked to our past that restricting the right to own them would violate the American experience.
Bellesiles argued that our love affair with guns is an acquired taste. His data indicated seemed to show that gun ownership was rare in early America.
---
Because it supported the anti-gun side of the argument, "Arming America" was hailed in liberal publications and condemned damned in conservative circles.
The New York Review of Books saluted Bellesiles for pulling the rug out from under "fanatics who endow the Founding Fathers with posthumous membership in what has become a cult of the gun."
The NRA and its supporters attacked Bellesiles in print and - by his account - in real life harassed him personally. He said that death threats prompted him to remove his family from Atlanta to an undisclosed location. Out of concern for personal security, his teenage daughter legally changed her name.
In retrospect, even some of his supporters wonder why they weren't more critical of his thesis that Americans living on the frontier in the 1800s could have survived without guns while facing armed Native Americans. Could they have found meat by simply trapping wild animals rather than hunting them with guns?
Bellesiles recalled his bewilderment at the anger his book stirred up. Far from being an advocate of gun control, he grew up accustomed to firearms and hunting.
"I have switched to bow and arrow," he said. "I don't think it would be good for me to hang out at a gun club, right now."
---
Initially, the campaign against Bellesiles prompted academics to rally to his defense. The American Historical Association passed a resolution condemning the personal attacks and harassment to which he was subject.
Since then, the circle of his supporters has shrunk dramatically. Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor who was on Bellesiles' side, said "Arming America" remains on the reading list for his classes, though for a new reason.
"It's clear now that his scholarship is less than acceptable," Rakove said. "There are cautionary lessons for historians here."
Bellesiles' ivory-tower problems began when Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren observed that Bellesiles' calculation of gun ownership was mathematically impossible.
Bellesiles' defense was to portray himself as picture himself a babe in the woods, a simple humanist lacking the statistical skills of his more sophisticated critics. He still says: "Look, I've never been good at math."
Next came the war of the e-mails.
Lindgren and others asked to see Bellesiles' raw data: the notes from the numerous archives across the country where he said he did his research. For one reason or another, he couldn't make many available. Trying to explain why, he seemed only to dig himself in deeper.
He claimed, for instance, to have used 19th century court documents from San Francisco. When it was pointed out that the city's records were destroyed in the great 1906 earthquake and fire, Bellesiles belatedly remembered reading them at a nearby archive in Contra Costa County.
But the archive's staffers said they had no recollection of his doing research there, and that their collection has no San Francisco records.
Much of his original research, by Bellesiles' explanation, is unavailable because it was destroyed when a pipe broke, flooding his office. Yet professors up and down the hall don't recall their offices suffering the same kind of damage as Bellesiles, who said yellow pads with his research notes were reduced to illegible pulp by the water.
---
Jerome Sternstein, a retired Brooklyn College professor, devised a test of that hypothesis.
"I tried to set up similar experimental conditions, and so put a dozen yellow pads in my shower for over an hour," Sternstein said. "By the next morning, they'd dried out and were perfectly readable."
Bellesiles doesn't lack for rejoinders. Indeed, the e-mails between him and his opponents have gone on in a seemingly endless cycle of rebuttals and counterarguments.
He said he had read microfilm of local records from certain local archives at an Atlanta branch of the National Archives. Critics observed that the National Archives don't store local records.
Bellesiles responded that he obtained the records from other sources but took them to the National Archives because the microfilm reader in his office was faulty.
"I never said I found the microfilm there," Bellesiles said. "I said I read it there."
He added that he intends to keep up the fight to vindicate his theory. He has lined up visiting professorships in England for the next academic year. After that, he would like to remain in teaching, possibly at the high school level. He added that he has to earn a living and adamantly denies widespread campus speculations that Emory gave him a generous handsome cash settlement to go quietly.
"I only wish that were true," he shrugged.
By his account, it is not he but the members of Emory's investigative committee who were the poor historians. He says he wrote a book with 1,347 footnotes and the panel found fault with material in five of them.
Yet, he does acknowledge a certain responsibility for his fate. He delayed fighting back, Bellesiles noted, thinking his critics were attacking on too narrow a front to pose a real danger.
"I will admit," he said, "that for too long I thought this was only a tempest in a footnote."
---
2002, Chicago Tribune.
When I'm walking through a bad neighbourhood here in Germany I feel a lot less worried than in a similar situation in the US, because here, the threat consists of knives, baseball bats, pepper spray and the occasional hand gun, whereas in the US, you might find yourself staring at a large caliber machine gun. Now, I'm pretty confident concerning my ability to run away from knives, but bullets are a different league.
The question of self defense boils down to what you want to defend against:
Do you need your gun to defend against the occasional ruffian or to preemptively kill someone who seriously is out to get you?
In the former case, I personally trust in my brains to calm the drunkards, in my legs to run away from the gangs and in the police to deal with anyone toting a gun (the German SWATs are pretty capable). In the latter case, when someone is willing to invest a lot of time and money to see you dead, you're dead anyway, because your gun won't help you defend against, say, a 50 cal sniper rifle.
So I'd say the strict gun control laws in Germany make me feel a lot more in control of potentially threatening situations simply because here, guns are not used for anything less than a bank robbery.
You will tend to be more polite when you know the other person is packing.
It is amazing how easy it is to find a compromise to a problem when the alternative is death. Just look at DeTaunt.
It sounds ilke guns are more of a recreational activity for you, which is fine as long as you use common sense. It sounds like you do. But the point that a gun is a more effective weapon still sounds like a fearful response to me:
1. Fear that someone will threaten your life in some way. While it does happen, it's not a certainty.
2. Fear that if you don't have a gun, that the criminal will AND that he/she will use it.
3. Fear that if you attempt to retaliate (which is the dumbest thing you can do) that anything but a gun won't suffice.
Personally, I'd prefer a "panic room" to a gun, take my chances with a baseball bat, or at worst, let the thief make off with my money or belongings. Most robberies are not violent crimes. In the rare event that someone actually breaks into my house with intent to kill, a gun won't do me a whole lot of good if I am still asleep or tied up. I, personally, prefer not to worry about it. There are more pressing dangers in my life than that. Keep in mind that I live in a "bad neighborhood" on the outskirts of Cleveland. Maybe I'm just jaded because I see and hear all sorts of things happening around me, or maybe I'm just not that scared.
Un-news
It has been pretty well proven that gun control actually increases crime, but I'm sure someone else will chime in with those statistics.
But lets assume for the moment that every law abiding citizen disarms themself, and by some miracle most criminals do too, and crime rates do drop.
The fact that "average" crime statistics have dropped will be of little consolation to you PERSONALLY, when you lie in a puddle of you own blood watching your wife get raped by an intruder.
You can legislate all you want, folks. You can not legislate evil out of the hearts of men.
Don't take away the right for me to defend myself and my family.
Judging from the posts, I expect you will find it difficult to find a clear path to make your decision from the posted stats on the web. I suggest a different approach - see what common sense tells you and analyse that.
Entropy and human nature suggest most of us are lazy. The argument that guns are inherently good or bad is a nonsense - its just a tool and people will use whatever tool they get their hands on to do things they really want to achieve. The thing you need to weigh up is how easy does having essentially unfettered access to guns make it for someone to commit a firearm aided crime (be it robbery, homicide, maiming etc). You could use another tool to achieve the same effect but it usually takes more effort and has a higher emotional cost (have to get nearer to person, have to confront them, need to conceal unusual object that is easily identified...) Management of what/how many guns are in general distribution will never eliminate firearm crime - it will just make it harder for someone to act out rage impulses. Try and take the easy option away and you have a chance that other measures (personal safety awareness, policing) could help. A teen "hacker" is so much more likely to use a rootkit or a script pack to attack machines than they are to try and write original code at the base OSI network layer level. Both sets of tools are there, they just usually take the lazy path.
Speaking from outside the US, try also to limit your reactions to "state control" and govt taking away "rights". When was the last time you ran across a civil servant that was eager to do more (and admittedly difficult) work?
Total Robberies:
Total Murders:
It seems to me that Americans are much more criminal than Canada. Because Americans have laxer laws for guns, perhaps there are more guns involved. However, there is no causal evidence for this. That's the problem with information like this -- you can show what has happened, but not why it happened. If handguns were outlawed, perhaps crime would increase, as it is less likely that Average Joe would be armed.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
> I'm very disturbed I came up with that idea
:)
Now with the blaming games again
I'll have you know that I've wanted to firebomb large crowds since before Video games came around, and I still want to. Only difference is now I can do it on a computer when I get the urge, instead of going to Los Angeles. Maybe we WERE better off without games... I'd visit more peace rallies, toting AK's and grenades. MUWAHAHAHAHAA
From another post above:
Do the math and see if adjusting for population difference explains the discrepancy.The right to free speech was put into the founding documents of the US in a time when printing presses had been recently invented and were expensive, Much information was still distributed on paper written with a quil and ink. Perhaps the founding fathers would have had different ideas if they knew how easy it would be in the future for any common man to post his message to thousands of people on ./
Other countries have the same issues as the U.S. with underpriviledged urban minorities and ethnic tensions -- many cities in the U.K. have large underpriviledged East Indian populations and France has a large underpriviledged North African/Muslim population, and in both cases there are sometimes actual race riots.
If the U.S. cannot blame the problem on an urban underclass, gang violence, or racial issues (the U.K. and France have those too), then it has to look inwards. Easy access to guns is probably part of the problem, but the culture behind it is a lot worse. Many Canadians outside the cities and suburbs own rifles or shotguns -- they're necessary tools for a farmer or for moving around in the far North -- but they're not romanticised the way they are in the U.S.
That's not all, though. If you really want the answer, look at law enforcement. The U.S. imprisons and executes more of its own citizens, both percentage-wise and in absolute terms, than nearly any other country in the world, including such beacons of freedom and democracy as Iran, China, and Sudan. Ouch! Countries that save prisons for rapists and murderers, rather than shoplifters, computer programmers and drug users, seem to have a lot less crime.
Almost no other first-world country executes its own citizens any more. Japan has capital punishment on the books but rarely uses it; most of the rest of the countries you wouldn't be ashamed to visit don't even have it on the books anymore. Canada abolished capital punishment in the 1970's, and the murder rate has been dropping ever since.
Sure, since Americans are more likely to have a handgun in the purse, bedside table, or glove compartment, they're more likely to use it to settle disputes, and a few more people get killed that way (usually friends or family members). The biggest problem, though, is the whole cultural attitude towards crime and punishment. I'm not proposing any feel-good rehabilitation stuff here -- I don't know if criminals *can* be reformed -- but just going by the numbers, the U.S. locks more of its citizens and has a higher crime rate than other rich countries, and it is harder on drugs and has more drug-related crime. Go do the math.
{If your life is threatened, it is the police's job to protect you.}= FALSE.
The police have no obligation to protect you. In most major metro areas, they don't even respond to 911 calls reporting gun shots. They may respond to 'robbery in progress' calls but usually arrive AFTER the event is over. Try holding a police department responsible for your personal safty in a court case and you will give the judge a good laugh.
BTW read TITLE 10 , Subtitle A , PART I , CHAPTER 13 , Sec. 311. to find out who is the milita refered to by the second amendment.
...to dumb to build thier own death ray.
maybe he would have just built a fertilizer bomb and blew up a hospital instead, killing far more people. how do you know we arent BETTER off because of him having a gun?
homicidal maniacs kill people. guns have nothing do do with it.
as far as accidents go... how many people are killed each day by cars? better ban them too!
I agree. You'd be up a creek if a homicidal burglar broke in while you were tied up. Maybe you shouldn't do kinky stuff in a bad neighborhood!
A dear friend of mine is a drug, gun and violence researcher with an Australian Government Department solely devoted to researching crime statistics and assessing government policy in relation to those statistics. Just the other night we were talking about how they can release a statistic, from that the gun control lobby will cry loudly about how well gun control works, the pro gun lobby will scream about how if we had more guns it would be lower still, and some whacko will publish their address on a website for people to stalk them for making guns look bad. From their perspective its very frustrating. Do yourselves a favour and read the real statistics, not ones generated by a lobby. Go to the Government departments and read them, and contrary to all the conspiracy theorists out there, they don't make the results up. I know for a fact that they spend months and in some cases years travelling around interviewing all sorts of people, from Police to criminals to law abiding citizens gathering the raw data that goes into those statistics. Educate yourselves with real data and make an informed opinion.
Shocking !! Think About This: A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000. C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services) Then think about this: A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000. B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is1,500. C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE
DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld
the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to
seek medical attention.
exactly, attat1! perps may b dumb, but they're not stupid: they know they have far less chance of facing an armed citizen in d.c. than in texas, or va., another r2c state...
re: police arriving 10min late...there was a case in d.c. in which some capitol hill residents tried to sue the police for not responding to their 911 report of an in-pregress break-in. the court decreed that the police have no duty to protect the public...
It amazes me that a community such as /. can hold such widely disparate opinions and somehow most of these people can internally justify it.
On the one hand, bring up any subject such as crypto, the MPAA, RIAA, government surveillance, or most any other individual rights issue, and the fur will fly. You will get countless opinions of how people should be left alone, complaints about how the US government is slowly (quickly?) taking away our individual rights, and how sad it is that the majority of the American populace just laps up the drivel fed to them by the mainstream media and the government.
Ask a gun control question, however, and many of those same people will suddenly be spouting the same mantra as the mainstream media and the government about how guns are the root of all evil. Don't you people realize that the second ammendment is there in case the government forgets the other nine? What good is a guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure" against an unarmed populace?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -- Kosh
The CDC collects the best statsitics on what everyone in the US dies from. These statistics will quickly show that your chances of dying from a gun are extreemly low. Combined with the fact that in 1999 57% of the gun related deaths were suicides makes it even less likely that you will be unintentially killed by a gun.
These don't directly balance each other out - the number of guns needed before they start to reduce crime is much higher than the number needed to increase it, so starting at zero guns, you will see crime increase as the number of guns are available, up to a point at which the second effect will start, and the increase in crime will slow. At some point, the deterrence effect will dominate, and as the number of guns increases, the crime rate will fall.
At 100% gun ownership, the rate will not reach zero, because many of those crimes are crimes of passion or convenience, and not thought out in advance. Mogadishu (or most of Somalia for that matter) has close to 100% gun ownership (there is no government to provide police protection or regulation), and also has one of the highest crime rates in the world.
So both sides are right - an increase in guns sometimes increases crime, sometimes decreases it.
Either way, the main cause of crime (and these are very strong statistical correlations) is usually due to other factors - specifically, 1) age (a heavy concentration of young people means a high crime rate), 2) poverty, 3) unemployment, and to a lesser extent 4) lack of education.
To compare the U.S with Canada, Canada has a much better education system (money is distibuted more evenly across provinces, rather than only within school districts, meaning poor districts are better funded than those in the U.S). Canada has a more complete form of welfare and social services (including universal medical care). And although Canada usually has a higher unemployment rate, it generally has better programs for dealing with unemployed people.
These factors are usually enough to explain violent crime rate differences in various countries, especially when rates of gun ownership do now.
Saying that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only applies to the militia is as silly as saying that the rights of free speech and the press only applies to religious material.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Whenever a government has taken away the tools a person could use to defend oneself, it has been a prelude to oppression, more often than not.
Look into weapon/self defense control as practiced in Korea, China, Japan, various places in Africa, at various places in history and you will see it.
Either that, or those in charge have something to fear from the populace.
Now - as to answer your question, I would turn to two reports (these would be 10-12 years old now) released by the Florida state police. Researchers for the Florida chapter of the FOP (fraternal order of Police) found that violent crime actually dropped in direct proportion to the number of "concealed carry" permits they issued.
Actually, I've found that most Police officers are supportive of private citizens owning and being trained in the safe and proper use of a firearm.
You make some excellent points. However, you seem to make light of the idea that "...if you attempt to retaliate...anything but a gun won't suffice." Unless you are highly trained, you had better use a gun. Consider the possibilities
1. You use a non-lethal weapon.
Unless you are better at fighting, which is unlikely since most criminals are young males, many with violent backgrounds, you will simply lose. Might as well not bother.
2. You use a potentually lethal weapon and lose the fight.
Your intruder, whatever his original intentions, will likely become enraged by your attempt on his life and use your weapon against you doing far more damage than he might have otherwise.
3. You win. This is the only acceptable outcome when your family is depending on you. A gun is the best way to achieve this outcome.
I'm not saying everyone should get a gun. If you get a gun and aren't prepared, you will likely hesitate and have the gun taken from you and used against you. By owning a gun you increase the risk of accidental death. So you need to balance those risks against the risk of a break-in. But unless you are very well trained, don't think you're going to be the superheroe and fight off a criminal with your own skills. That's only in the movies, and by the time you realize your mistake it will be too late.
The statistics used in "Bowling For Columbine" compare apples to oranges. The fact that the US has about 10x the population of Canada probably has some effect on the difference in the number of gun murders that occurred in each country.
Additionally, other violent crime statistics were ignored by the film. How do assault statistics compare? Rape? Murder committed by means other than guns?
A well made film, but pure propaganda.
This is exactly why a free country should HAVE guns.
If the people were armed, an oppressive British rule would not be possible in the first place.
That is the reasoning behind our constitution in the US - to keep the government from overplaying it's hand.
Since we're armed to begin with, instead of after the fact, the chances of bullets flying are severely limited.
http://www.sgaus.org/
http://home.att.net/~dcannon.tenn/TNSG.html
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg.html
http://www.mil.state.or.us/SDF/index.html
and several more
which is the idea.
In fact the WOSD is a perfect model for taxing bullets, look how it has driven people to pay hundreds of dollars on oz for a weed that used to grow wild in most of the country.
The point is not about guns used as self-defense weapons, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. The point is that if every murder (remember, we're not talking self-defense here) that took place with a gun had to be done by beating the victim to death with a baseball bat, it would take a great deal more resolve to do it.
Guns, as weapons, cheapen death. When not used aggressively, it makes no difference how easily they kill, only how well they work to frighten, deter or (in the worst case) stop an assailant.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If a situation is potentially life threatening, they will not enter. Say you're in a bank, and a robber walks in with a gun. By law you don't have a gun to protect yourself in a bank (only police and licensed armed security hired for that detail), so you lay down on the floor, quickly dial 911 on your cell phone, say "1st national bank is being robbed", and leave the phone open, so the police can hear what's happening inside.
Mr. Robber shoots someone. Anyone. Doesn't matter why. The police are not going to come in. They're going to park their cars in the road and stop anyone from getting close. They'll threaten to shoot they guy, but they're not going to put themselves in harms way to stop the robber.
They'll *TRY* to save you. They'll negotiate and all that. But in the end, you're on your own til the scenerio is over. They'll keep him from getting away, but they aren't protecting you. If you get shot, that's the robber's fault, not the police's, and they will take no responsibility. Their responsibility starts if they shoot you, and that's even questionable in court.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I am no gunslinger. I certainly don't carry a firearm, and I don't own a handgun (I do own firearms, just not any handguns). However, I do believe that the fact that the fact that some of my neighbors are armed makes the bad guys pause. Criminals don't want to be dead any more than the rest of us.
I also reserve the right to be able to protect my own family. If someone did break into my house I don't want to have to wait for the police arrive to defend my family. Pulling a gun may make me a priority target, but I would much rather that I was the target than my wife or children. If someone wants to enter my house and do harm to my family then they had better be prepared to kill me first.
Finally, I believe that citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government. This is a bit of an unpopular view in a time when many people look to the government to solve all of their problems, but I feel that it is historically prudent. There are plenty of examples even in recent history where a government (even a democratic government) has oppressed its own citizenry (Nazi Germany being the prime example). In short, I believe that the founders knew what they were talking about when they guaranteed our right to bear arms.
Even cruise missles and nuclear warheads must be launched/detonated by real people with consciences (well, mostly). Do you really think that a pilot is going to launch missles into a crowd of civilians in the US? If there was an all-out revolution, a significant portion (possibly even a majority) of military personnel would be sympathetic to the revolution anyway, and those arms would go to the people.
Guerilla warfare is all about groups with inferior firepower challenging and winning against governments by using stealth tactics and never assembling in formations and the like where weapons of mass distruction like bombs, missles, and nukes are viable. So, no, 60 million gun owners scattered far and wide would not be easily put down even by a goverment using missles and nukes. There were a lot less Viet Cong and they sure gave our boys the fight of their lives!
And the original poster did not say he was scared of Y2K, because with weapons at his side he was prepared for any kind of disaster and the looting that inevitably follows, so he would have no reason to be scared. He said that he was approached by others who had no means to protect themselves who were scared. He offered no opinion on the viability of the (now obvious in hindsight lack of) threat of Y2K.
And because you haven't ever had to use your seat belt to keep you from kissing the windshield, would you like to give it up? I wouldn't. And as the Brady Foundation themselves have said, registration is just the first step to disarmament.
-Mo
No, it's not momentum/impulse. It's not energy. It's not velocity or anything else mentioned. It's the pressure exerted by the bullet that causes it to tear skin and muscle and fracture bone. If you actually quit drooling on your keyboards posting nonsense to slashdot while you recompile your kernel and download new sawfish themes, you might have the time to compute the energy and impulse of a bullet. They aren't very large. Velocity alone presents no significant danger. Gamma rays and other forms of radiation travelling at enormous speeds hit you all the time. The impulse isn't what does it: a shooter has to deal with more momentum than anything the bullet hits. The bullet bleeds off velocity (hence, momentum) during flight. What matters is the effect of that momentum/energy on such a small area of the target.
Switch to a sword, and the limiting factor is your skill with the weapon, and your energy. ie, you can keep killing as long as you are standing, and swinging.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
...the court decreed that the police have no duty to protect the public...
That's exactly right. The police are NOT charged with defending you from crime, only with writing up the report after the fact. Your first line of defense against crime is yourself - [flamebait] and your gun.[/flamebait]
I give up - how do you get it to render the less-than/greater-than arrows?
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Hey,
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
Y'know what would be damn funny? To buy a house, put up a sign like that, then rig it with mechanical metal jaws beneath the windows, circular cutting disks that pop up from the floor, gigantic catapaults that fling criminals hundreds of feet in the air, etc.
I can just imagine a criminal entering the house, then a snap, a crash of metal, a scream, and a body flying out and landing hundreds of meters away.
So yeah, I would.
Just my $0.02,
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
According to Scotland Yard the availability of black-market arms is way up compared to before the handgun ban...
And I subscribe to the "Wrestling Observer" newsletter. I'm not a moron, and neither are most fans, regardless of your ignorant implication.
Also, Oprah is popular for a reason - she connects with housewives. The people who watch "Oprah" are not necessarily stupid.
Statistics are other people, but I implore you to come down from the tower for a while. Most humans are of average intelligence, like it or not. You aren't better than others because you have different tastes and opinions.
Don't get sucked into the debate about gun control. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with either crime or hunting. If you read the Bill of Rights in its entirety, you'll discover that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee that the populace has the wherewithal to defend itself against government (including, but not limited to our own).
For purposes of comparison, frame a debate over freedom of speech (or religion) in terms of crime or hunting. You'll see it doesn't work.
PS: You asked for facts. Start with the Constitution of the United States.
I have a friend whose family lived in Kennesaw, GA for a few years, and they were legally required to own a gun in their house due to a law passed in 1982. The law was a backlash against Morton Grove, IL's law outlawing all handguns within city limits. Humorously, the law has enough loopholes to let people get out of it that no one could truly be forced to own one, and no one's ever been prosecuted for breaking it, but when his family moved in, the local law enforcement did actually check to make sure that they owned a gun. That's definitely an improvement over gun ownership being regulated through nepotism.
Kennesaw's violent crime rate dropped 89% in 1983 and has stayed that low while crime state-wide has only dropped 10%. If I recall correctly, Kennesaw has had 3 murders since 1982 despite the population doubling since then, and only one (in 1997) was done with a gun while the other two were stabbings.
There have been no incidents of children being killed in accidental discharges. As a result, the NRA loves Kennesaw. It's the best pro-gun example they could've ever dreamed of.
For a little more info on both towns, go here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh yes, because people obviously will stop doing things because they're illegal. Yeah, just look at how there hasn't been any drug abuse since it was made illegal, and murders? Oh, I guess those have never happened becuase murder was illegal since fucking forever.
Get a clue. It doesn't matter to the murderer that guns are illegal. If some assclown wants to kill somebody with a gun, they're going to a) get a gun through whatever means it may take them, and b) kill the person.
The only difference gun banning laws will make is that people who would otherwise legitimately use a gun to defend themself from being shot will no longer have that option. Oh yeah, sounds peachy to me!
Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
Explain to me how this applies.
You are a fucking pessimist. Guns should firstly be banned, then taken out of circulation. I never said it will not be a long process, but it has to start somewhere. Your attitude is typical of the dumb-ass fatalist state of mind your country suffers from. Protect your rights at any cost. What a jip. You are protecting the right to kill your own people and you think thats something to be proud of. There's a big clue to be gotten there pal.
Own whatever you want on your own property, but to take that firearm with you in public you have to be licensed.
That's effectively what a concealed carry permit is like where I live. Most rational people won't carry a pistol openly without making threatening gestures or movements (which is legal where I'm from), because you'll unsettle people and get a lot of inquiries from cops. Anyone who operates with a gun in their regular life pretty much has to have one of these licenses. At home, they don't matter.
It's not that hard to get where I live, but thankfully it's still harder to get than a driver's license. Well, maybe it's not that great that it's harder to get. Man, the idiots on the road where I live. If only I had a gun... <g>
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Fact: countries that have enacted strick gun control have indeed seen an increase in violent crime.
But really more important than facts are rights:
What basic right does a free man have?
What basic right guarentees all other rights?
Ask the Tenamen Square marters if freedom of speech was a good guarentee of their human rights against the Army!
The framers of the US Constitution were just restating this "I am free if and only if I can bear arms".
History (Cromwell) and Cornwallis had taught them this.
I know this may sound stupid but really our faith is not in the weapon but in God who gives us the knowledge to build it and the character and wisdom to use it.
Supra et Ultra
Shouldn't bringing a new baby human into this world require at LEAST as much licensing / education / certification as catching a fish?
Hell, yes. I think a great number of the social ills plaguing our society could be solved by making sure parents pass an independent psychological and financial evaluation before being allowed to reproduce and then encouraging them to have as many kids as they can safely support to make up for the large numbers of people who should fail that evaluation. As the son of two teachers, I can tell you that so, so much of what's wrong with kids and adults today all stems from the fact that all that's needed to be a parent is functioning sex organs.
Poverty, juvenile crime, being ill-equipped for success, debt-saddled families, drug abuse, bullying and wife and child beating, molestation, etc. could all be reduced sharply by making sure people who can't properly care for children aren't allowed to have them.
The problem is that it's impossible to implement in a reasonable, dignified manner. How do you stop kids from being born? Forced abortions, forced (but reversible) sterilization, or forced abstinence? All are abhorrent in one way or another. How do you fairly judge parents-to-be without allowing political views, racism, religion, eugenics, etc. to get in the way? How do you tell a couple that they're just too poor (welfare mothers) or too abused (beaten as children) to safely raise a child? What do you do when people break the laws anyway?
Many of my favorite authors have positted a future where such population controls are in place. Most are not very egalitarian, however. Niven's Known Space universe in the early days of "The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton" had people prove some great accomplishment for humanity (or win a lottery). Walter John William's "Aristoi" was modeled after Plato's enlightened dictatorship and had the aristoi who were equally burdened with responsibility and privilege able to decide who had kids on their carefully population controlled worlds. I think the most egalitarian means for determining who gets to have kids is an exponential tax, as proposed in one of Asimov's books, I think. The first kid costs X amount, the second 2X, the third 4X, and so on. Money is the closest thing our society has to measuring worth (though it's still a flawed mechanism), and it's coincidentally one of the things needed to raise a kid well. Pay a tax and pass several child-rearing classes, and you should be good to go.
The problem of how to stop people who don't qualify from having kids still isn't addressed, and I don't think it ever will be. Until we have some "vaccination" against pregnancy that can be administered in childhood/puberty that doesn't have long term health risks, like in "Aristoi," and a means of suppressing its effects or of having children without pregnancy, no means of suppressing childbirth will be humane.
Even with all those difficulties, it's still my dream that one day we will have a fair and just means of licensing childbirth to prevent overpopulation, bad parenting, and kids trapped in social situations with no hope for the future.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Here in Denmark, nobody, except the police, carry guns that are now for sport. Police guns are weak, and VERY RARELY (once every few years) kill.
1-10 people are killed each year by guns, fom a population of 5.5million.
Draw your own conclusions....
If Americans have problems protecting themselves from "villans" with guns, maybe they should start thinking a bit about how those villains got their guns.
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
What about drugs? If you're not OK with the idea of them being legal...
BTW. I'm an anarchist. So I believe, that ideally, we should have right to own anything we want, do anything we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others. But unfortunately, society can't handle this kind of responsibility yet, so laws are still needed as a diterant otherwise I would agree with you.
If you live in a democracy, why not?
Actually, we live in a democratic republic, and it's a good thing too. The biggest problem facing a democracy, and to a lesser extent a democratic republic, is "the tyrrany of the majority." Our system of government is specially set up to allow people to express unpopular opinions. However, much like a true democracy, our government fails to properly protect those people sometimes and actively goes after them other times. Remember Martin Luther King, Jr.?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I consider gun ownership part of the culture of personal responsibility that every truly honorable society should strive for. Life is a precious gift, and the taking of life one of the most serious acts a person can take. If you feel that owning a gun is your best bet to preserve life, especially that of you and your family, then go ahead and buy a gun.
Dude, it seems to me that in Afghanistan -- thanks mainly to the free-spending Carter and Reagan regimes -- that every person in Afghanistan who wanted any kind of lethal weaponry could acquire it. What happened? THe loss of central control, endless slaughter, and the rule of the strong -- which you dismiss as some kind of "learning curve" -- followed by religious theocracy. Maybe that's why so many religious fundies in the US seem to be in bed with the NRA?
The chimera that a gun-enhanced family is a safer family is a myth. Quite the reverse is true.
Da Blog
I checked out lots of books, statistical studies, and arguments from both sides of the gun debate before coming to the conclusion that Guns, In The Hands of Good People, Are Good. Bad People With Guns Tend To Do Bad Things. Boo Hoo.
Second: just because Canadians enjoy a lower per-100,000 murder rate than Americans, does not have anything to do with the mere fact of similar statistical per-100,000 gun ownership. No, it has to do with national temperment. I love my Canadian brothers, but, as a society, they are more mellow than Americans, except when it comes to French-speaking issues and drinking. :) Also, per-capita Canadians live a more rural life than Americans, and since the percentages of murders shoots sky-high in primarily urban settings, this must also be taken into account as a factor for gun-related murder rates.
Third: I have come to admire and appreciate the craftsmanship and engineering involved in producing a well-made firearm, which is a laudable end unto itself, in addition to the other utilitarian benefits gun ownership confers.
Finally: I am sick of hearing whiny liberals without a backbone try to tell me how to behave morally. I happen to think that deadly force is sometimes preferable to knee-jerk capitulation.
I think gun control is silly. A gun is a tool, like a car or a table saw. Both cars and table saws have caused deaths; in fact, cars contribute to far more deaths than guns. Notice I didn't say "cars kill people". I don't blame a tool for irresponsible or negligent users of that tool, I blame the person operating the tool.
Because this really is the answer to every problem, let me reiterate:
To make this generalization specific: Instead of banning guns, I support qualifications for gun use, similar to drivers' license tests.You may ask why I suddenly had a change of heart regarding guns (from fence-sitter to non-ban). This past weekend, I attended a four day handgun course at Front Sight, a firearms training institute in Nevada. I did not attend because I'm a gun nut, I did it at the request of a friend. I was there to chaperone a collection of 20 pasty-faced geeks from my alma mater. These students are as close to the typical /. crowd as you'll find.
At this course, the instructors don't use the words 'accidental' or 'unintentional' when talking about guns. They use a different phrase: "negligent discharge". Anyone using a gun should be responsible for the results of that use. Accidents never happen with guns, only negligent or malicious use.
I encourage everyone to take the Front Sight courses. I learned an amazing amount from my experience. I can now take a (loaded) Glock 17 from a concealed holster and deliver two sighted shots to the thoracic cavity on a target 7 meters away in under two seconds. I can also deliver a headshot to the cranio-ocular cavity at the same distance 80% of the time under time pressure (the other 20% end up hitting the forehead or chin). I can do better than that with a few more seconds. And four days ago I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, and neither could most of the people I was chaperoning.
If you think I'm now a menace to myself and others, you should know that the most important skill I learned was when to use a gun, which is almost never if you use proper conflict avoidance. If I'm carrying, and I'm attacked at the ATM by a robber, I'll just drop my money on the ground and back away. If he walks past the money and draws a knife, I'll shoot him. But I'll only shoot as a last resort.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
is much better first line home defense than a gun under the pillow.
I sleep well all night knowing that anyone trying to get in is going to meet not just the sound but the teeth of my alarm.
PS the risk of accidental discharge pretty much went away after the first 4 months, though the risk of "accidental" garbage can tipping is still around %5.
Professor Eugene Volokh provides the individual rights view of the 2nd amendment.
Man, we're awfully close.
Guns are bad, m'kay?
etc, etc, folks certainly are trying to:
"stop children dying in accidents then they would focus on the plethora of more common accidents which claim the lives of children around this country rather than focussing on guns."
But somehow the NRA gets all up in arms when folks try to mix reasonable safety measures with guns...
Hahaha, the sign argument, a classic.
"This house protected by a gun and I dare criminals to try and rob me, no really. i dare you!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's pretty strongly in favor of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but he's intellectually honest enough to point out the other side of the issue in his posts.
If you search thru his blog archives, you'll find quite a bit of info on gun control, includingly lots of links to various statistics and legal analysis.
In a recent letter to a seventh grader asking essentially the same question you asked (he posted a copy of the response to his blog), he suggested checking out the following URL:
http://guntruths.com/Resource/facts_you_can_use.ht m
He made it very clear that it was from an anti-gun control perspective (and encouraged the kid to check out pro-gun control groups), but seemed to think the info was pretty accurate.
I haven't really come down one way or the other on the issue of gun control. But one thing that always confuses me is this: whenever I suggest to my gun-owning friends that I should be allowed to carry a personal nuclear device on me at all times, they get very agitated. The moment my heart stops, kaboom! Look at the benefits: nobody is going to try to kill me, or rob me, or even touch me! If the Minutemen were graced by our Constitution with the power to carry the maximum firepower for their time (the musket), why can't I? It's like telling the average Slashdot reader that he can only use a 486 and a 4800 baud modem. Yet it's mainly my friends in the NRA who are opposed to the idea.
In terms of UK having more violent crime but fewer murders, someone else posting to this article detailed the differences between UK and US statistics keeping.
The basic tendancy is that the UK Home office does everything it can to show the smallest number of crimes, and the US DoJ processes data in a way to give the highest possible numbers. The UK actually redid it's statistics-keeping a couple years ago because the numbers were becoming quite an embarrassment. As far as I can tell, they're still an embarrassment. The DoJ thought though is that the higher the crime rate, the more funding law enforcement departments will get. Once they've got the funding, it's rarely cut, even when crime falls. But again, someone else described the statistics keeping differences, so please look for them.
Assuming that the net result is still true- that the US has more murders (I can believe this) but a lower violent crime rate otherwise, I think your initial conclusion is true- the easy availibility of arms + tradition of self defense does count for much of the difference. And quite frankly, I'm not going to cry if some rapist gets his brains blown out. Also, the Urban areas of the United States suffer from a huge gang violence problem, a problem just starting to arise in the UK. (Their murder rates have been skyrocketing lately, including gun related homicides.) If you leave out gang-ridden urban areas, crime rates in the US are comparable to any european country or canada, and often times better. Even including those high-crime areas, I think we're probably 7th on the list of violence in developed countries.
Now certainly gang & drug related crime is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but leaving it out helps put the rest of the country's crime rates in perspective.
Also, the British people are generally famed for their restraint, which may help explain the lesser murder. Perhaps their criminals are a little less apt to 'finish the job' when attacking or robbing someone. Just a guess.
for the other points:
1. The instant death tool of choice for alot of japanese lately is the train. Just as effective as a gun, and alot messier. (Get this- they bill the family for the cleanup. Real Nice.) But suicide is acceptable over there anyway. There's alot of ins and outs about suicide that make it's analysis difficult, and I think it's been said that the availability of guns does increase elderly suicide rates. This makes some sense, because if your mobility is limited, you don't have the option of jumping in front of a truck or train, or jumping off a ledge, or perhaps even hanging yourself.
For the physically capable though, they have a number of choices on how to kill themselves, many of them instantenous. I've read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that females attempt suicide more often than guys, but guys succeed more often than girls. This is for a couple of reasons:
A) Some think that often times girls try to commit suicide as a desperate plea for help, in a time of crisis, whereas guys will comtemplate suicide for sometime and make a definate decision that they want to die.
B) Because of A, guys will choose a more violent, final method of killing themselves, because they've thought about it.
So i think among feeble groups, the availability of guns may increase suicide rates. Among able-bodied though, I don't think that the availibility of guns would have a significant impact.
2. The comparison to swimming pools was meant to show that it's not a huge public health problem, that we allow our children to engage in statistically deadlier activities daily. No lives are saved by a child swimming recreationally, are they? If there's no net benefit to swimming, why alow it at all? Just stay away from lakes and you're all set.
But we allow our children to swim, and swim ourselves, because we acknowledge that some acceptable risk is inherent in every activity, and that the enjoyment derived from that activity outweighs the slim risk of death we run performing it. In that light, even as a purely recreational activity, it's acceptable to have guns around for just target shooting.
For the number of childrens lives saved by shooting, I'd like to again point to Klecks high estimate of 2 million legal, defensive, life saving uses of guns yearly by American citizens. Gun control advocates place the number at around 200,000. This is still two orders of magnitude larger than the number of murders, by any method, of children in 1997- 2,100. (see Here For 1997, the cause of child death are as follows, starting at 44,000 for Motor vehicles:
(Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1997)
Guns don't even rate in the top 8.
How many defensive gun uses save children is a question for further debate, but I'm already tired of any public initiative that flies under the banner of "for the children."
3. Doctors make sometimes make mistakes that outright kill people- some mistakes- a lot of them- aren't just a matter of 'failing to save someone.' Also, if a life is taken in a legal and moral self defense situation, that is not a bad thing, and should not be considered in a negative light. Whose death does society benefit from? The would-be mugger/rapists death, or the death of the woman he attacked? Don't try to tell me that their lives are equally valuable, because the dead robber no longer terrorizes society, and that's a good thing.
That being said, Kleck's research was an attempt to come up with a figure that shows you that the number of lives saved by guns exceeds the number taken by them. You must also remember that there are a number of situations where it is permissible (and I think morally acceptable) to kill an attacker when your death is not a definate outcome otherwise.
Anyway, I need to get to sleep, but I'd reccomend reading every +3 comment and higher under this article, and doing some further reading on Kleck's efforts directly, because it will be of higher quality than any second or third hand info I relate in my sleep deprived state.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
A paraphrase of something I'd seen on USENET years ago, and so obviously in need of validation via DOJ crime stats and Census tract data:
Gun deaths per 100,000 -
X W. Europe
X.5 Canada
3X U.S.
X U.S. primarily Anglo
7X U.S. other (primarily A.A. and Latino)
Exercise for the reader: do the research online.
If true (besides being inflamitory), this was to explain why a white rural or suburban gun owner would get urked that that their rights/privledges were getting trimmed because of issues in the big city.
Speaking of race, a few years ago the City of Chicago made a point of tracking where weapons taken from criminal investigations were coming from. Usually white, suburban gunstore owners. Same general trend in any major city with strict gun control: imports from the rest of the country. This shows the idiocy of those using the resulting crime rate as evidence that gun control promotes crime. Gotta be a little more "Whole"listic than that.
Drawing such spurious results from statistics falls apart in Hawaii, since you can't just pack a van full of heat in Florida and drive it on over. Honolulu County has about as many shootings in a year as Pima County (Tucson, AZ) has in a month from about the same population.
Just for the sheer hell of it, I periodically practiced my right to open (holstered) carry when I lived in Tucson. Too lazy to sign up for the concealed carry classes.
They usually don't respond because they are lame and there are not enough policemen, not because they are not obliged to.
Check out Jeffrey Snyder's piece A Nation of Cowards
It's a great read, and I agree with it almost completely. Also, feel free to email me for any further debate.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
We're a small community of under 20,000. We discuss gun control in our Justice/Public Safety Forum. I'm on there as ThinkTank. And actually almost all of the Brady's facts are correct and double checked, as well as Violence Policy Center, Americans for Gun Safety or The Coalition of Gun Control. But there are links to research from The Harvard School of Health there as well detailing the costs of gun violence. I hope I see you guys there. Justice/Public Safety
http://www.mcsm.org/28amend2.html
Basically, throws out the 2nd amendment and updates it, allowing reasonable people to own reasonable weaponry. Worth a read.
Any more than requiring a parade permit infringes on the right to peaceably assemble.
Confiscating guns would infringe on the right to bear arms, so you don't have to worry that licensing will lead to confiscating. Remember slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
generally requires permits or licenses, & subject to all kinds of restrictions which have generally been upheld by the courts. so it seems your statement you can't license a right is false.
So it seems to me, again, so long as it were clear what the procedure was and no person or group was unfairly excluded (felons & severely mentally ill presumably would not qualify), it would be entirely within the rights of Congress to require gun licenses.
I repeat, What do you need a gun for? Please tell me so that I can go out and by myself one! I feel I am missing out on something here, something is missing in my life...
Guns kill people, guns are bad. That's it.
I tell you Dunkirk -- as a vociferous atheist (as in without belief in the supernatural) -- I can't remember the last time I sacrificed a goat to the god of gun control. geezuz feckin christ. and you were right about those debates.
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Actually, they do care, but not in the way you would think. Street gangs tend to make most of their money from drug sales, and a lot of gang violence is over sales territory or profits.
Gangsters are turning away from robbery simply because it isn't profitable. You rob a half dozen people in the ghetto and you might come up with $100 or $200. And any one of those guys could be packing and decide to cap your ass. In fact, as a ganster pulling in drug profits you are FAR more likey to have lots of cash on hand than anyone else. YOU'RE the sort of person that has to worry about getting robbed. So strangely enough, a lot of gangster/drug dealers initally get firearms for SELF-DEFENSE against other gangsters.
If you stop and think about it, firearms aren't really the issue. They just make things more lethal. If the preferred weapon was knives, the gangsters would just be stabbing each other. The real problem is the profits the street-level dealers can make from drug sales.
I'm confused.
First, you tell me that I'm mistaken. But then nothing else you say contradicts anything I said. If we agree, then how am I mistaken?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place? Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation with consequences that are just as dire.
;-)
Yeah, but notice how those two problems seem to cancel each other out?
certain arms, likewise.
Muskets would probably be exempt, for instance, along a similar logic: certain assemblies require permits because they may cause impact, and (legal) assemblies involving alcohol most always involve licenses because they may cause a greater impact, so guns that are more dangerous (like handguns and carbines) require licenses while single shot muskets probably wouldn't.
First, you tell me that I'm mistaken. But then nothing else you say contradicts anything I said. If we agree, then how am I mistaken?
Well, I'm saying that firearm deaths are a symptom of gang violence, not the cause. If we agree on that then I guess we don't disagree.
Additionally, we don't know the source of the numbers. Were they adjusted scores? Were they averages over a long period of time or short period of time? What were the methods for sampling and what was the sample? How were the samples chosen?
I would submit this information from the cato institute. While not rich in statistics, it does provide reputable reports. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
In the USA there is a level of criminal offense known as a felony. Felony crimes include extremely heinous acts such as rape, murder, armed robbery, arson, and illegally duplicating more than $500 in copyrighted material within a 6 month timeframe.
(Notice how many software products are priced just over $500 now?)
If you are convicted of a felony, (any felony), you immediately lose your right to own firearms in America.
New crimes are being defined on a daily basis, and existing crimes become elevated to felony status on nearly a daily basis. It creeps, little by little. This fall, the once-popular act of listening to cellular phone calls on a scanner actually became elevated to felony crime status.
The word felony is becoming so broadly applied that it is slowly losing its original meaning. I foresee a day when jaywalking becomes a felony, and by that time very few people will still have gun rights in America.
An interesting gun article from an Australian Professor.
There is a considerable argument to be made that gun control is to blame for an increase in violence in Britain.
Except crime is FALLING in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2123249.stm
most of the gun crime there is related to drug wars and not criminals vs. law abiding people.
Indeed real gun crime is extremely rare in the UK, so rare it usually makes the national news, and it nearly always inter-gang related. a lot of _armed_ crime is replica firearms.
I'm ok with some drugs being controlled substances and others not. Getting high isn't the problem. Substances that are dangerous or addictive are. Some drugs can literally enslave the user at a level that alcohol and currently legal controlled substances can't (nicotine is close). Take heroin for example.
What is problematic about drugs is that some of them clearly aren't addictive or would be very beneficial to users if they were over the counter consumer products. Others, though are dangerous or addictive and should be controlled.
The purpose of allowing citizens to "keep and bear arms" (notice that that isn't limited to guns, as the word arms means weapons of all kinds) is to 1) provide a ballance against tyranical government. 2) Ensure that citizens can defend themselves even against the government, should that be necessary. 3) Make it more difficult for a foreign power to conquer and occupy the US.
Must be hard being an anarchist supporting the rule of law.
-- $G
Having read over 1000 comments to this posting - I guess it it time for me to jump into the fray. I did research in the 1980's about the relationship of deaths by car and gun - cars are more dangerous. I taught my children (oldest now 30) that you do not drive a car but control lethal, deadly force - they all 3 have good driving records. The pen is mightier than the sword. I really don't care who you vote for - as long as you think before voting. I wish that the constitution required all voters to be armed with lethal weapons at the time they vote. If I can not trust you with a gun - should I trust you to vote for President (atom bombs, etc.)?
Chet Ellis
Must be hard being an anarchist supporting the rule of law.
Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?
No, It like JWSmythe just stated. It is not part of their job. Forget the "To Protect and Serve" line. The police are there to enforce laws not protect you from criminals. The only one that has any legal obligation to protect you is _you_. The only other entities, at least in the state of Texas, that have any legal right, not obligation, to defend you are persons with whom you enjoy a special relationship; e.g. wife, child, husband, extended family, friend or someone responding to your calls for help. Please note that they have a right to act in your defense but no obligation..
Final
Maybe, maybe not.
The End.