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."
> 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?
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.
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."
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).
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.
Beware of statistics on children killed by guns. Usually they don't differentiate between the 10-year old who accidentally shoots his sister with daddy's pistol and the 17-year old gang banger who gets shot by the owner of a liquor store while attempting an armed robbery.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Erm, why the Centre for Disease Control?
Doctor: "I'm sorry, but little Billy has got a serious case of cranial bullet-itis. There's nothing I can do."
Define "use". Pull it out and threaten, or actually shoot? I suspect that gun toting thugs in the UK are less jumpy and trigger happy as they don't have to worry about being shot at. From what I hear, most of the gun crime there is related to drug wars and not criminals vs. law abiding people.
Our founding fathers were mostly Deists, which is not Christian and barely "believer" in terms of categories. Ben Franklin (arguably one of the smarter of the group) was an atheist (note the spelling), and Jefferson's views on religion and christianity in general certainly don't support what you're saying either.
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
The founding fathers saw blacks as property (sorry niggers, but our Founding Fathers were actually slave owners. Deal)
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.
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)
No, the Bill of Rights enumerated *personal* rights that the gov't could not infringe. Why would just one out of the ten be a state right?
Also, the concept of the militia is to form a military group out of your citizens. Therefore, you need a citizenry that owns and shoots guns regularly, so when you *do* need to form a militia, they are ready to fight. In fact, in a militia, the men were assumed to bring their own weapons.
Also, it does not refer to the National Guard since that was formed by an act of Congress 140 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
--- witty signature
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!
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
That's not so far off the mark.
If only the government has guns, then the people are pretty much out of luck.
Which is why the 2nd amendment exists. So the people (meaning individuals, not state-run militias) can rise up (after exhausting all legal means) and take control again.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
They were talking about Militia's so that states would be able to protect themselves from an oppressive federal government. NOT so that all people could have guns.
Uhh...a militia is a body of citizens organized for military service. A citizen is an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. These are dictionary definitions, not my own.
So, a militia is a group of *private citizens* organized for military action, usually in defense of their township or state, and armed not through federal funds or subsidies, but through their own means.
Tell me again how the second amendment doesn't guarantee private citizens the right to bear arms?
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
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"
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...
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
Ah, the Constitution. To restrict freedoms granted by the Constitution is to take the first step down a slippery slope to dictatorship.
Or not.
Slashdotters are generally pretty big on the First Amendment if they are American, or on their respective nations' constitutional or legislated guarantees of free speech otherwise. You still can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You're not allowed to put up a website encouraging people to kill doctors, even ones who perform abortions.
When an individual is arrested for a crime, he or she is immediately deprived of any number of rights, despite being presumed innocent. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Yet people (nominally presumed innocent until proven otherwise) are regularly held without bail before trial. You know what? In some cases, it's not a bad thing.
Rights granted under the Constitution and Amendments must be balanced against one another. As written, the First Amendment is absolute. "Congress shall make no law..." Nevertheless, limitations to its application have been considered and imposed by government and upheld by the courts.
As for the Second Amendment--are you part of a 'well regulated militia'? The world was a very different place in 1791--perhaps the time for the Second Amendment is not past, but surely our interpretation of it should have matured beyond "Everyone should have a right to guns as they see fit."
~Idarubicin
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.
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
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 think I have a problem with the violent attitude that is becoming more and more prevelent in our society. We have become a nation of school-yard bullies, "I'm going to beat you up if you even look at me wrong!". Its evident in schools, in sporting events, and in the way we all drive. Everyone seems angry at everyone else.
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.
This post reflects that attitude, (or fear of that attitude, which is not unfounded) by stating that he always carries a gun. I don't think that solves the problem. I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else.
Personally I believe that media and society feed off of one another to create this attitude. Society wants more violence, TV gives it to them, thus society in turn gets bored and wants even more. Now I'm not saying that things like Columbine were caused directly by violence in media, but I think it contributes to the overall attitude of the nation.
Finally I wish that the government would let up on this whole terrorism thing and start doing something to stop the domestic terrorism of violent crime. And I don't mean to put more police on the street, I mean things like education, and drug rehab, etc... anything to get at the root of the problem.
The Anti-Blog
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
Tell that to the Somalis who forced the U.S. out of their country with (mostly) small arms. Facts: 1) People willing to fight for something they believe in gain an advantage over hired guns. 2) A lot of the advantages of a high tech, heavily armed disappear in urban combat, especially when the high tech army doesn't want to cause incredible numbers of innocent casualties.
Don't assume that every conflict against a poorly armed population will go over like Desert Storm, Kosovo, or Afghanistan.
What's the difference? Both were killed by guns.
One due to improper storage of a firearm, one by improper use of a firearm. Both had the same results - someone under the age of consent died due to a firearm.
In this case, only one could be attributed to 'gun violence', but here in Canada, there are laws regarding gun storage. It would have prevented (does!) the death of the 10 year old's sister. Would not this data be a better case not for gun control, but laws regarding ownership of firearms?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
"Guns were an essential part of the American Revolution. We as Americans gained our freedom by fighting for it. Without guns, we'd be a heavily taxed bastard colony of England still."
... ummm, shall I go on ?) much lower on the people-killed-by-guns scale.
Right, look at Canada and Australia. We're still bastard colonies of Great Britain, aren't we ? Not everybody has to go through a bloody battle to become independent.
Clinging to such a dated and nowadays absurd idea that guns are still essential because they were essential in some long-irrelevant war, and, furthermore, that they are a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, further promotes unneccessary and uncontrolled use of guns.
I have a friend who applied for a firearms license here in Ontario. He had to go through a rigorous psychological examination at least, not to mention the background check. However, apart from the procedures, the attitude that owning a firearm is a privilege (like driving) rather than a right, probably contributes significantly to keeping Canada (not to mention Australia, Germany, France, South Africa, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland,
Is there any legislation in the States that would prohibit people from using guns if they prove negligent in their care or irresponsible in their use (before even killing or wounding another) ?
You can lose your Driver's License if you are caught driving drunk, before you hit anyone or do any damage. You cannot lose your firearms license for keeping guns and ammo in the same closet or accidentally shooting a window pane to smithereens because, well, there is no such thing as a firearms license !
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.
The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that.
Interesting. Prohibition taught me that the Government CAN take away my rights. They did then. Many peoples' rights were taken away during McCarthyism. And many peoples' rights are being taken away right now. It's all a case of what is politically popular and unopposable at the time.
If you argue for example that terrorist detainees should get a fair trial, you will be laughed down, even though that is what is 'right' under the Constitution, for example.
Think about your reaction to the above point. Why do you feel the way you do?
"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."
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
Even adjusting for population differences, that would give the US many, many times the rate of gun violence that the UK enjoys.
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)?
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?
"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.
I don't want to flame you, but I do have some questions.
First, protection from what?
Second, why by the door? If the Deadly Home Invaders of Death kick the door down and barge in, they've cut you off from your protection before you've even figured out what's going on. If they knock first, wouldn't a paperweight, or a stun grenade, or a taser, or a cattle prod, or whatever be just as handy--and much less lethal?
Finally, have you ever opened the door to a situation that could be best resolved by killing someone? Do you have any reason to expect that such a situation may come knocking?
I dunno, maybe shooting people dead really is the best solution for the problems that plague your neighborhood... if so, I humbly withdraw my questions.
Bonus: I don't think the point of the Second Amendment was to make law enforcement officials fear for their lives when serving a warrant. If that's your idea of a situation that could best be resolved by killing someone, remind me never to drop by unannounced. It seems your paperweight has put you in the mood for murder.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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
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
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.
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
CATO [cato.org] has some of the best independent studies and reviews of all sides of the issue.
oh, PUH-leeze!
The Cato institute is about as far right as you can get and still claim to any sort of credibility.
Nobody has "unbiased" facts and figures on crime and gun control. Everyone has an axe to grind, on every major issue. What you have to learn to do is look at everyone's biased figures and interpolate to something near the truth.
0 1 - just my two bits
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.
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.
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.
(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
Let me preface this by saying that i'm a huge snoop fan and though he often raps about shooting people, slapping hoez, pimping hoez, selling crack, driving drunk, killing cops, etc. I'm of the opinion that lyrics mimic society, not the other way around. I mean, after listening to snoop or watching Boyz 'n' the Hood I too fantasize about doing drive-bys on niggaz that talk shit about my hoe (or whatever), but I don't do it. Why? Cuz I'm a middle class white guy who didn't grow up in the ghetto and learn how to conduct himself by absorbing the crime going on all around him. Still, you're wrong. From his first album, Doggystyle, Snoop often raps about killing people, such as in U Betta Recognize (Pump Pump Intro): ...
... ...
...
Gangster1: Yeah whassup nigga? What the fuck's wrong with you?
Snoop: Yo nigga whas happenin fool? You know the name of the game, your bitch chose me. Nigga we can handle this like some gentlemen or we can get into some gangsta shit
Gangster1: So whassup nigga?
Snoop: Have it your motherfuckin way
Gangster1: Well whassup?
Snoop: That's whassup nigga
----
Who Am I (What's My Name?):
It's like that and as a matter of fact [rat-tat-tat-tat]
Cuz I never hesitate to put a nigga on his back
[Yeah, so peep out the manuscript
You see that it's a must we drop gangsta shit]
Mr. One Eight Seven on a motherfuckin cop
Robbin motherfuckers then I kill dem blood claats
------
Tha Shiznit
So lay back in the cut, motherfucker 'fore you get shot
It's 1-8-7 on a motherfuckin cop
And serve your ass with a motherfuckin AK
------
Serial Killa
Now break yourself motherfucker, 'fore you make me
take this 211 to another level
Etc., etc., it goes on and on. So don't tell me it's all about parties.
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.
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.
No, seriously, too much oxygen is just as fatal as too little. Ask a diver.
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.
I don't really get that whole concept. I mean, are the congressmen gonna come after us with Glocks or something?
I mean, if you're ever going to have a succesful violent revolution there's gonna be a coup involved. Even if you magically got everybody in the country to storm DC with a rifle, you still won't have a chance at getting at the president or really anybody big unless the Army helps you out. Feds go underground in Virginia, Secret Service on the roof fire rockets into the mob, your revolution's done.
The Army will always outnumber civilians in numbers that are willing to die. You guys would be fighting to make your lives better (the vast majority anyway) which is a judgement call. When you get hit with napalm, you'll decide that your personal happiness would be greater if you were having your rights violated instead of being burned alive. The same majority of soldiers would be shooting you and getting shot at because that's what they do, which is not a judgement call, and has very little to do with how unpleasant the whole thing is.
The Civil War only lasted as long as it did because more than half the Army ceceded along with the south.
In other words, marines can kill you if you have a gun or not.
This really has nothing to do with gun control, about which I probably couldn't give less of a shit, I just find it hilarious that so many people here have these fantasies about becoming a charismatic revolutionary someday. Do you think playing Ernest Hemminway in Spain will get you babes or something?
I agree with whoever it was that said "I bet you guys would love it if the US suddenly turned communist" or whatever somewhere on this thread.
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.
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.
Neither do their parents.
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.
That's cause their parents are obviously fucking idiots to begin with.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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'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...
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...
ok, I'll concede that the robber improperly used his firearm, and as a result, was killed by the proper use of another firearm (that of the owner).
Of course all the gun-control laws in the world won't stop the criminal in this example of having the gun to improperly use in the first place, so talking about a criminal improperly using a gun isn't really germane to a gun-control discussion. (which is what this topic has turned into)
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
See, in the real world, we have something called criteria that decisions are based upon. Someone demonstrating that he is about to (intentionally) kill or rob you is a criterion in the decision that he must be stopped, with deadly force if necessary. "I think" is not. *Sigh* I didn't think that I would have to explain this. What is it that you're trying to demonstrate, again?
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
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?"
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.
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.
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