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."
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."
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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
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.
"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.
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)?
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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'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.
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?