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."
The Center for Disease Control keeps very detailed records of how many children die each year in the United States from firearms violence. Suffice to say, I have yet to see any organization, Brady or NRA, that gets these figures right.
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
The unbiased analysis you seek is just not humanly possible. Everyone has an opinion on the right to bear arms vs. gun control debate, and anyone willo become emotional defending his or her position. Here are some of my thoughts. Outlawing guns won't disarm criminals. They are criminals, and won't respect new laws any more than the ones we have now. Outlawing guns will only raise their price on the black market. Anything demanded will be supplied. That is basic economics. Even if we could create a state where only the army is armed, do we really want to?
How ya like dat?
Gun crime is a crime of opportunity. Guns are available, so crime with guns will occur. The number of guns already present in the United States will make gun control much less affective. Studies clearly show that most crimes are not performed with "new" guns.
Therefore, gun control is a reactionary measure proposed by people who fail to understand the motivations behind gun crimes. They are trying to oversimplify. Guns bad...ban guns, doesn't work though.
The biggest problem is this though...you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that. You can give more rights to Americans...if it's not something we've become accustomed too, you might can take it away. But something we've lived with as a standard for years. You can't take that away.
Craenor
Topics such as gun control, abortion, capital punishment, etc. are too emotionally entangled with people's perception of the issues. Most people don't own guns, nor have they ever fired one in their lives, but they sure do have an opinion on gun safety. I'm not discounting their opinions. For example, I've never owned a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean my concerns over them aren't valid. However, just about anyone can learn how to operate a firearm safely. Therefore, I do believe gun owners have an edge over most other individuals as far as having an opinion that counts.
A lot of people will/have ask what business this has on /.
Personally I'm wondering too- though for what it is worth every time I read arguments about freedom in regards to softare/tech stuff I am stunned by the parallels in the gun control arena.
Should hardware or software that COULD be used to circumvent the law be illegal? Even if there are other uses that are not illegal?
What about personal responsibility?
And for my opinion on the question itself. I will add what I believe to be a fact that would add a lot of reason to the debate.
Gun control cannot work in America without the citizenry of the U.S. giving up a lot more of their personal freedoms. It is too easy for Americans to come and go as they please- to keep things private in their homes and buy/sell things in private- unregulated transactions.
As long as this is true gun control will be unworkable. If you doubt this look at how incredibly innefective gun control has been to this point in time.
The parallels to the war on drugs are also interesting but I've gone on enough already.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Awhile back I did an analysis of gun control by correlating one self-described "gun watchdog" group's grades (ranging from F to A, with +'s and -'s) on the different state's gun control laws.
.25) between the level of gun-control.
Then I took the number of violent crimes, homicides, &c per capita (FBI statistics for the same year as the survey) and put them in separate columns. Looking at the correlation matrix I found that there was no correlation (R^2 <
A principle component analysis revealed a further lack of dependancy of one variable on the other.
This study was by no means complete--I didn't correlate it against the years or anything along those lines, but a search on the net for other research while I was performing the research for this project indicated that other studies--using various methodologies and some of them much more formal and complete than I had been--had come to the same conclusion that I had.
If you don't believe me, download a copy of R (http://www.r-project.org/) and check it yourself with those criteria you think would be accurate. I would be interested in the results.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
One problem is that you can't find statistics on how many crimes are prevented because someone pulled a gun. Those types of incidents are rarely reported. It's only when someone actually pulls the trigger that it becomes a statistic.
Perhps you mean the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being a necessity in a free society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." If the meaning ofd this were not so murky, that alone would be something. Does "Well regulated Militia" mean the army, the national guard? or everyone able bodied? and does "the people" mean all the people, or just the ones in the militia? Do you propose that if we passed a new law,that criminals who are by definition, people who break the law, will respect it? That would be a magic law. Too bad there's no such thing.
How ya like dat?
sorry athiests, but our Founding Fathers were actually believers. Deal
We deal. You're right, they were Christians and Deists. This is well known. Anyone who says different is selling something. I'm an athiest. No one I know has ever said differently. I'm not really sure why you felt like mentioning it.
Posting at 1. Please don't upmod me.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I hate to get involved in gun-control arguments, but...
Could anyone post a link supporting this? I've seen lots of England-vs-America gun arguments and the one conclusion I always noted was that England has a pretty low rate of gun violence. Despite their relatively high crime rates in other areas.
What more do you need to know? Whether you're more likely to kill someone because you carry a gun. Sure you are. Whether you're more likely to get killed because you carry a gun? Debate that all you like, but if you have it, you have the choice whether to use it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
My thinking on the matter is: if no one has guns I would feel safe, knowing that if someone wants a gun they can get it makes me not feel so safe, so I need to get a gun too, given that bare hands are little match for a 38 special if the need ever did arise
I certainly see a need to limit the spread of weapons in this country, but I don't think it will limit crime, only gun related crime. Last time I checked, lots of people were killed with knives *and* blunt objects (try limiting those).Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
A gatling gun?
I guess it's not quite parallel though, is it. But, you have loading, firing, and cooling all running simultaniously.
My opinion of the "Guns Kill People" theory. I have guns. I haven't killed anyone.
If my life is threatened, I will use those guns. Otherwise, those guns are as safe as any other paperweight. If my life is threatened and I don't have a gun, I'll defend myself the best I can. Hopefully the other guy won't have a gun. Throwing a paperweight at a guy with a gun just makes him mad.
Cars kill people. Floods kill people. Lightning kills people. Lunitics in airplanes kill people.. Why don't we have people protesting against the existance of cars, airplanes, and the weather?
Americans claim we're safer if we don't have guns.. 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.
So, yes, I have guns, and I will keep them. I will remain safe.
For Y2K, people were asking to come stay with me, because I could be well defended. You all hate guns until you need one to protect you.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I'm pretty sure it's a fact that in every state in the USA that has made concealed handguns legal, crimes involving guns have dropped dramatically. If the two don't correlate its an impressive coincidence.
btw, remember i said "pretty sure" not 100% positive.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
I don't believe you will find any correlation between gun control and gun crime that cannot be explained through other social factors present in the society.
Take two extremes (and this is anecdotal evidence) - Japan where guns are strictly controlled and Switzerland where almost everyone has a semi-automatic weapon from National Guard duty. Neither of these countries has the violent crime problem that is found in the USA. The real question is not one of how prevalent guns are in the particular society, it's one of how prepared the population generally is to use those guns that are in the society in a violent manner.
The only thing that can be said about gun control is more accidental deaths occur from gun related injuries if there are more guns in the general population.
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of "evidence" which shows crime going up and down as you look at changes in gun laws which also conveniently ignores other social changes in the same time. I'm sure you'll see people arguing that guns are needed for self defense and that guns aren't a defensive weapon, but effectively a counter offense.
Personally I don't carry a gun (statistics do seem to show that carrying a gun means you have a higher chance of being killed in the US) but I believe it's the decision of a society as a whole as to what degree its citizens should be allowed to arm itself.
An interesting aside, I believe (IANAL - could have my sources mixed up) that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the interpretation of the constitution to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, instead affirming the view that the 2nd amendment refers to state controlled militias. Those that swear by the constitution as a defense of the right to bear arms should be aware that the Supreme Court's view is that you do not have that right in the US.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
John Lott did an excellent job on this book and I would recomend it to anyone. It shows pretty conclusively that concealed handgun laws hinder crime.
The criminals mindset is self-preservation. If he doesn't know if Joe Blow off the street is carrying a handgun in his jacket or grandma has a pistol in her purse, is he really going to chance robbing the person? Statistics in the book show that in states with concealed handgun laws, the probability is less.
Taiwan only allows the police to own firearms and almost every window in the country has bars on them, even windows on the 10th floor. You can brake in to anyone's house and rest assured that no one will be able to stop you. The reason you live without bars on your windows is because the criminals are not sure which houses have guns and which ones do not.
Now I know that the collective
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Police carry to prevent crime, namely injury to themselves as they try to enforce the law. So, the lawful armed citizen is a Good Thing. Laws disarm only the lawful.
Here are some of my offtopic threads on slashdot on the matter:
Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs
and another:
ACLU campaign challenges patriot act
Now, I personally do not think the right to keep and bear arms should hinge on the utility of it, but you can read more on my stance in the threads linked to above.
Literature
It should be noteworthy that some researchers- Gary Kleck and John Lott, I think- started out their research seeking to prove gun control lowers crime, and found just the opposite. Being intellectually honest, they switched sides.
For some good reading, with some solid factual basis & unrefuted citations, read Richard Poe's Book "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" (ISBN 0-7615-2558-0) or Chapter 10, 'Gun Control Advocates- Good Guys with blood on their hands'of "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America", a book by noted Libertarian Larry Elder. (ISBN 0-312-26660-X)
Poe's book condenses the research of Kleck and Lott into a more palatable format, while combining it with his own research and observations. An excellent read. Lott has statistically shown that in states with more liberal concealed-carry laws, crime rates against persons drop significantly. This is offset by a slight increase in property crimes in these locations, which is only rational & definately preferable to confrontational crimes. Kleck's research shows that guns are used legally and defensively to stop crimes anywhere between 800,000 to 2 million times per year. Gun control advocates estimate around 200,000 such uses per year, which is still more than enough to show the positive impact.
Larry Elder's writing style is a bit too conversational at times, but that stems from his main job as a radio talk show host. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote in the aforementioned book, Chapter 10 is right on target. Either way, the book is an excellent read.
The most notable book from the Gun Control advocate side was Michael Bellesiles' (formerly of Emory University) book "Arming America", however, he has been thoroughly discredited (Note: The linked article is very tongue in cheek, but nonetheless details his downfall at the hands of his equally liberal but intellectually honest peers.)
Now the Gun Control Advocates have nothing. Why? Because they have to lie. There are many who say in this thread, "The sides are equally valid, you can't have an unbiased analysis." This is wrong.
Gun control advocates must rely on distortions or outright lies to prove their point, because the facts are not behind them.
This is a harsh statement, but I will defend it anecdotally. My opinions I've formed from the aforementioned books, and from such sites as packing.org and guncite.org, and from the occasional spot check of their accuracy. If you want supporting documentation for my opinions, look to what I've already given you.
1. Gun control advocates often cite "Gun deaths" when talking about the need to control guns. The assumption is that by removing the most efficient means to cause death, the deaths will not occur. What they don't tell you is that about half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available. Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
2.When Gun Control advocates speak of all the children who die each year to gun violence, they include inner-city gangbangers as old as 24. While their deaths are tragic as well, they cannot be honestly compared to the suburban nuclear family with two responsible adults, actual children (ie, at most 18 years old), and a handgun for protection. If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms. Their utility, however, is unquestionable, so we allow their presence despite how often they kill people. The utility of guns is not so obvious, even with the 800,000 legal defensive of guns each year that Kleck estimates, because most of the time, a shot isn't fired, and it isn't reported, because the citizen is afraid of running afoul of the confusing labrynth of gun laws in any particular state- and they've already solved the situation.
Well, I think I've written enough for now. I've cited most of my sources in this thread, or the threads I've linked to above, so don't ask me to defend them, as I already have.
That being said, I enjoy debate and will reply promptly to any intelligent reply/challenge.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Some groups of interest:
Jews for the Preservation of Fire Arm ownership
(remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising!)
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols
(Gays for Gun rights. They rightfully need to defend themselves from some of the morons wandering around this nation. The Matthew Shepard incident would have been a footnote in the local police dossier if he had been armed and able to defend himself.)
www.packing.org
(Concealed Carry information for all 50 states)
Sorry for no links, but you all know how google works.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
First, I should say that I own guns, most of family members have owned them, and I've pretty much grown up with them. I am also a 'liberal', and I no incompatibility with these two points of view. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms of any type, within reasonable limits. I don't see a reason for private citizens to own selective fire (what the military uses) firearms. I disagree with the term 'assault weapon', because it's basically meaningless and it's code for 'scary looking'.
First, the problem is not guns per se, but violence and violent crime. The causes of these are well known: poverty and economic and social injustice. You can pull all the guns off the streets, but it won't do a damn bit of good unless the underlying causes are addressed. I don't think you could ever argue that guns cause people to be violent, or that someone is more likely to commit a crime simply because they obtain a gun. The logic isn't "Gee, I have this gun, now I have to think up a crime to commit." The logic is really "I want to commit some crimes, so I should get a gun."
Gun control is not totally odious either. In California, in order to buy a hand gun, you need to obtain a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which you get by taking a test similar to the test you take to get a driver's license. There's a ten day waiting period for all purchases (including gun show purchases), and you undergo a background check. These are all reasonable to me.
There is one other point that I'd like to make. A lot of people who advocate gun control have so little knowledge about what the process is to obtain a gun, and what you can and cannot legally buy, that it hardly advances their case. Every time I hear some shrill advocate talk about 'automatic weapons in the hands of children', I cringe. Likewise for the old saw about someone going around the corner to a gun shop and walking out of there the same day with a gun to kill their wife. It just doesn't happen. If you're going to advocate a position, it's really a good idea to understand the topic you're discussing, otherwise, people like me who know what the deal is just think you're an idiot.
Black market firearms are a problem, and if law enforcement had the the resources to go after illegal gun dealers like they go after drug users, the problem would be well on its way to being fixed.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
In D.C. there are very restrictive gun laws. Dispite this D.C. has one of the highest rates of gun violence. To try to rationalize the amount of violence they use the argument "people are buying guns from states with less restrictive laws".
The problem is that if this were true how come these states don't also have problems with gun violence?
Are we to belive that D.C. residence are more violent that the surrounding states? I don't think so.
One thing to consider is that someone that is going to use a gun to commit a crime is not likely to care that the fact he has a gun is illegal.
To try to show an unbiased opinion, I will draw references from both sides of the aisle.
As I mentioned the other day, the core of the problem is not guns, it is people. Guns have become the target because it is easier to make blanket decisions about the intermediary than to try to address the real problem of trying to figure out how to pick which people do not deserve to have them.
On the other side, people choose to fouus on banning abortion clinics and the idea of abortion for the same reason. These are easier targets to deal with. It is more difficult to try to deal with the issue that women who decide to have abortions are the problem.
In either of these cases the real problem is people, and ploiticians who want to "take things away" do not want to focus issues on individuals, or stratified groups, because it looks like discrimination and is bad for them politically. So they target the intermediaries... guns, or abortion, or some other soulless impersonal thing or idea.
Honestly, I'm not trying to troll; however, isn't it quite possible that the author of this book that you put forward himself has a bias and only represents in his book those facts that serve his argument? Color my skeptical, but an inaccurate conclusion is an eminently likely result from an incomplete data set.
-
United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation
-
International Homicide and Suicide Rates
A quick summary: Non-suicide gun-related deaths...- are not proportional to the percentage of households that legally own handguns.
- are proportional to the overall crime rate
In my opinion, it means that gun laws don't solve gun crimes, but whatever means address overall crime (education, equality, whatever) do work.A sad story indeed, and I don't mean to be disrespectful by saying this but .... what would you have done?
I have difficulty seeing you driving the car, noticing the guy on the street corner pointing a gun at the car and somehow withdrawing your own weapon, aiming (from a moving vehicle) and killing that guy before he shot you.
Outside of the Matrix, how does that work?
The whole "guns for self defence" argument seems to be based around the idea that you can kill your attacker faster than he can kill you, but if your attacker has a gun, then he can kill you pretty much instantly without you even being aware they are there anyway. Where's the benefit?
That is an ignorant statement.
If there were no guns a substitute would simply be found, like a knife. If you want to stop crime you have to try to focus on something that can be influenced in the equation, the person.
What if you take everything away from a man. He could still kill you with his bare hands.
From my poor memory:
:).
IIRC, Duggan uses "Granger Causality" in his study (not specifically mentioned, but he discusses lagged changes affecting gun homicides). Granger Causality, IIRC as well, posits that a correlation between two events, differing in time, show a causality. So, in this case, (and based on Duggan's proxies), that an increase in gun ownership Granger causes an increase in crime, which in turn, IIRC from the paper, Granger causes another increase in gun ownership.
Of course, there are problems with Granger Causality, one example of which is Christmas lights and Christmas. Given that Christmas lights (barring some dorm rooms...) are strongly correlated with Christmas, and occur beforehand, one could state that Christmas lights Granger cause Christmas. I'm fairly sure Duggan addresses the correlation/causation issue.
Of more interest perhaps is Duggan's choice of proxy for gun ownership, which is sales of "Guns & Ammo" magazine. Lott (see Guncite) questioned the use of this proxy, based on the size of the sample and its appropriateness (i.e. it covers long guns half the time). Keep in mind, however, that relatively small sample sizes aren't always a killer, and Duggan explains and tests the appropriateness of the proxy.
Perhaps the upshot of all of this is that you can't trust any scholarship whatsoever
Another good book, The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker:
You know what the source for this is, right?
Oliver Wendall Holmes thought that ditributing pamphlets opposing US involvement in WWI (widely regarded by current historians as a stupid war) and encouraging people to resist the draft via legal means was not free speech, because (mumble mumble) crowded theatre (mumble) national security. It was, in my view, a markedly poor decision.
In the state of Pennsylvania, our right to bear arms for both SELF-defense and the defense of the state "shall not be questioned", as per our state constitution. Naturally, there are some reasonable limits to this clause as enacted by our legislature.
Felons cannot own firearms. You have to go through a (nearly) instant background check to see if you have a criminal record prior to purchasing a firearm. If the instant check comes back "criminal", well, a friendly state cop or deputy sheriff will be in the room with you shortly.
Assuming you have a clean criminal history, $19 will get you a license to carry a concealed firearm. I've had mine for nearly two years now..my carry pistol has never jumped out to bite anyone. The responsibility I accept while carrying greatly limits my ability to party; the pistol gets locked up on my designated party nights.
The stigma attached to guns amuses me as much as the stigma attached to drugs, or 'Open Source Software.'
My life is mine to defend. Noone else is obligated to protect me, and I wouldn't ask them to be. Nor can I afford a professional bodyguard. Police? Love 'em, most of the ones I know are great guys..but they have no legal obligation to protect me as an individual, nor am I obligated to beg Mr. Rapist/Mugger/Batterer for my life until the police arrive.
I hope that I never have to hurt another person in my life. It's not my desire, nor is it my intent.
I will do whatever is necessary to protect my life from unwarranted aggression, however, up to and including the use of lethal force.
I hope you care enough about your life to do the same, but it's your choice to make. Noone's mandating that you carry a concealed firearm. It's the responsible thing to do, but it's your choice.
The extremist gun control advocates lamented that PA would turn into Dodge City when we went 'shall issue' back in '95 or so. Hasn't happened. Most shootings are related to the same things they were back then..the "war on drugs" and the criminal enterprises the 'war' fuels.
Where I used to live (Westmoreland County), one in eight people held a concealed carry permit.
I've never felt safer - except at one of the mega gunshows held bimonthly outside of Pittsburgh.
you find that the author is explaining that small towns in the western US that allow people to walk the streets with guns did not have an alarming number of handgun deaths in the early 1990s like New York and LA had because of their laws.
What about states in the east like Pennsylvania and Florida? In each of those states violent crime decreased (or in the case of Florida, certain types of violent crime still increased but at a lower rate than they had before the concealed carry laws were reformed) after they passed reformed concealed carry laws.
I was granted a carry permit in Pennsylvania when I was 21. One funny thing is that when you have a permit and learn the proper way to conceal a firearm, it makes it much easier to tell when someone else is carrying. I'm a fairly large man, I am over 6 feet tall and weigh 205 pounds. I can conceal a Glock 21 under a T shirt. If you're 5'6" and weigh 150 pounds, you should find a smaller pistol to carry. Problem is that some people don't think that much into it.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I agree w/you on the training. I see the different sides to why making it a law is not received well by some. I took my first classes so I could get my concealed weapons permit. I have friends who wont take the classes because they don't feel comfortable with the information they have to give the government about themselves to get the permit. If you hang around here much you should be able to understand that sentiment.
I disagree on the number of people qualified to handle a weapon well- and on the frequency with which fire arms save lives- or at least help stop criminals. But I doubt either position can be 'proved'.
You are absolutely right. Just going out and buying a gun is not enough. That is just the very beginning. (Actually it should be part of a process that started well before owning the gun but still- it's at the beginning somewhere).
But I really believe more people should stop shirking there responsibility and start taking the necessary steps to be able to be proactive in their community. It would help lessen the amount of violent crime in this country.
If you don't know of any cases where armed civilians have done good things with their firearms you have not looked too hard. It happens on a regular basis. Often it does not make it to the news as it is a non-event.
I personally watched a friend (he is now a police officer but was not at the time of the event) run out to a traffic accident - draw down on a man who was about to take a bat to a kid who had caused the accident- and keep a beating from happening. One that could have been lethal.
A close friend of mine witnessed an estranged boy friend in the process of kidnapping his ex girlfriend from a grocery store parking lot. (He didn't know the situation at the time- just saw a guy grabbing a screaming woman and throwing her in a truck). He drew his pistol- tried to stop the guy and got hit by the truck.
He didn't save her then and there- but he did his best. The whole scene got a call put through to the police and they were able to stop the truck and apprehend the man. He had a knife and had told the girl he was going to kill her.
I could go on all day. You would be unwise to take my word for it (and I don't think you would) but if you dig a little you'll find that you are mistaken when you say this never happens.
If there is such a thing as an average person I am it. Average people can handle guns in a manner that is not dangerous but rather beneficial. I am not rare among gun owners. I would say that many more of us than you think take our freedom very seriously and weild it accordingly.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Yes, yes and more yes... Oh how I wish I had moderator points today... I had them two days ago, nothing interesting, and now this... Gun Control... oh how I'd like to mod your post up...
It so very much comes down to the whole point of the 'moment'... people who are otherwise fantastic people can have moments where they really want to hurt someone else... it may be due to alcohol, it may be due to them having some real anger management issues... but the thing is... if they don't have a handy gun or other weapon on them, then the worst that will probably happen is the other party gets a black eye or broken nose... when the agressor comes to his senses he may have ruined a friendship, or maybe can even make up with the other party... if it were a gun toting angry person, then the other person is dead... no way to make it up to them, no way to mend your mistakes, because they're dead.
Lyapunov:
You asked for unbiased sources. I did a search of the comments (over 1,400 so far) and did not find this:
The PBS (Public Broadcasting System, the government-sponsored TV network in the USA) had an excellent program years ago on its FRONTLINE series. It was hosted by the late Jessica Savich. This was the most objective and informative program I have ever seen on the topic you ask about. I hope you can obtain a videotape of the hour-long documentary; it is fundamentally useful, and it is absolutely NOT dated today.
Next: in that program, a book was mentioned, and the author was interviewed. Sorry, I don't have the bibliographic data at hand, but: the author was, as far as I can recall, at the University of Chicago. His research on gun crimes and crime prevention was seminal and, as far as I could tell, dispassionate.
Also: there is some legal scholarship available on the supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment. Look in particular for the ruling, in the 1870's if I recall correctly, that made gun ownership a collective or social right, as opposed to an individual right. The case involved freed former slaves who resorted to firearms to defend themselves from night riders, lynch mobs, the KKK and other murdering racists. Since the southern states could not tolerate this, laws restricting gun ownership were passed and enforced against blacks only. This is the root cause of the legal confusion over the dispute today.
Your attempts to find good data on the internet are not surprising--I have interests that take me back to articles published twenty, thirty and more years ago, and the results of Google searches are dismal, to say the least. Perhaps this tendency to ignore the past, or not archive it properly for search engines, accounts for the fact that no one has mentioned the excellent sources I give you here. You will have to dig. Contact PBS and ask for help getting a copy of the FRONTLINE documentary; they may help you. Good luck, and persist!
Speaking from personal experience, I can think of absolutely no gun-related crime reported here in the last eight years I've lived here. Nor have I heard of any of the "accidents in the home" that gun-control advocates trumpet as a risk of gun ownership.
In the state of Georgia, there are very few barriers to gun ownership. Provided you're not a convicted felon and haven't been in a mental institution recently, you can buy and keep a gun in your home, car, or place of business. If you pay the fee in your county and don't mind being fingerprinted, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon pretty much anywhere besides a school, church, gov't building or public gathering. What's more, the police are very supportive of personal carry.
Lest you think we have a society of trigger-happy vigilantes, the law does provide some of the stiffest penalties in the nation for crimes committed with firearms, including a mandatory, non-negotiable five-year prison term for any crime committed with a firearm. This is the right kind of gun control: let law-abiding citizens protect themselves while providing stiff penalties for those who break the law.
Do a google search for "Kennesaw gun law," and you'll find the statistics, which pretty much speak for themselves.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
Interesting, because I'd say that about sums up the attitude of Australians too. Guns are for shooting at targets and at pesky ol' wabbits (or other animals). After the Port Arthur massacre (35 dead, 18 injured by one madman with a semi-automatic rifle) the Australian government outlawed semi-automatic weapons (with an amnesty period with gun buy-back by the government) -- a move which was quite reasonable from most Aussie's point of view, because why on earth does one need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to kill defenceless animals with? Using guns in self-defence simply doesn't cross our minds. That's what the police are for. And if the police are not sufficient, then that's a sign, not that the Barbarians Are At The Gate, but that they've knocked the gate down and are here already.
Don't think I'm an anti-gun loon. I'm very proud of Australia's great record at target-shooting -- in the Olympics. (grin) People should be allowed to own guns -- and use them to do things other than kill people with them. (Though I think hunting with a bow and arrow is probably more interestingly challenging than hunting with a rifle. (grin) Then again, we don't have any large predators here. But watch out for the venomous snakes and spiders...)
I find it fascinating that the statistics quoted by many in this discussion point out that the USA is simply more violent, with or without guns, than most Western democracies. This sounds like a fundamental social problem, or perhaps a fundamental socioeconomic or sociohistorical problem. Which means that banning guns is not going to solve the problem.
So why are USians more violent? Violence, fear and anger. Anger about what? Lots of things. I was appalled to find out how ridiculously low the minumum wage is in the US, how pathetic the US health system is, how inadequate the US welfare system is, how huge a gap there is between rich and poor -- and the silly attitude towards Unionism as an arm of Subversive Communism. Bah! From my point of view, unionism is something which aids social justice; it's one of the checks and balances which make for a better society. (All power can be abused, so therefore Unions shouldn't get too much power either -- but that doesn't mean that All Unions Are Bad).
With all the Wars on this and that -- On Drugs, On Terrorism... the US is at war against itself.
Y'know, what the US needs is another war. A War Against Poverty. Y'think that would go down well with all the warmongers?
-=- Say it with flowers. Send a Triffid. -=-
Okay, this is a little bit offtopic but here it is anyway.
In Canada, the gun registry system was supposed to cost only 2 million dollars, because gun owners were suposed to pay 30$/year for their permit. After three years, it has cost 600 millions and not even all guns have been registered.
At 2 millions dollars the lifes_saved:dollars ratio was pretty high, but at 600 millions (and counting), it would have been better to invest it in hospitals or something like that...
Ref: http://cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/12/03/auditor0212 03
GFK's
Even if laws get passed, it doesn't mean everyone will give up their guns. I, for one, would easily give up my second amendment rights if and only if I knew no one else had a gun. Other people would keep their guns, and if I gave up mine, I would just be more of a victim.
This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
Do you value the sanctity of your eleven year old daughter's hymen more than the life of a criminal? I do. Do you value the throat of your wife over the life of her potential repist? I do. Do you value the security of your home more than you value the lives of the leeches that prey on our society by robbing us? I do. Do you value the safety of the ones you love over the ability of criminal predators to prey on your naivety? I do, in spades. Don't worry though, even if we disagree, If I ever were to be present and armed while one of these scum were attempting to harm you or your family, I would never hesitate to kill to save an innocent's life. I wouldn't torture myself inside or feel bad about it. I don't feel a twinge of guilt picking a mosquito off my neck and squishing its little guts all over my thumb and index finger. My feelings are less compassionate for criminals. Every time a citizen kills a criminal in self defense, it's just one more asshole off the street. It's good for all of us.
No guns in Puerto Rico?
Try again. The first thing me and my friends did when getting a cab to go into the non-tourist areas of PR was to make sure the cabbie was packing heat. Ours had a
otoh, when we ported in St. Martin and got lost in our rented Suzuki Samari, we ended up getting momentarily stuck in dirt (soft soil while making a u-turn) while being chased by a machete weilding (and swinging) mob from one of the local non-tourist towns we ended up in. While it wouldn't have come to a shooting, my friend who pissed his pants would probably have appreciated the
That was about 15 years ago. Even though guns then were illegal, and probably still are, most cab drivers, and most males in general who value their life and who live in the rough areas pack. There are even more guns there now.
In Britain, we have outlawed the majority of firearms, any firearms that are legally kept are licensed (for pest control, hunting, etc) or contained strictly for training purposes on a range.
However, outside of this there are a large number of illegal firearms which continue to be brought in to the country. These guns come into the country from places where there are lax gun controls, usually by boat into. It is impossible for us to check every man / woman / child / aircraft / boat or other vehicle which approaches upon our borders. If more countries did the right thing and controlled firearms, then we would have alot less deaths.
Alot of the gun supporters in America complain that while we have locked down the control of guns, we still have high numbers of murders (or homicides if you prefer) which are gun related.
I've heard alot of people use the saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people", I find no merit in that statement, it's true that a gun needs to be operated (handled or mishandled) by a person, but the gun is certainly an effective tool which makes the job of killing alot easier, after all, that is what a gun is designed for "to kill", in the same way that a bomb is designed "to kill" even if a controlled explosion does make an impressive display of destruction, the primary function of the device is still to kill, you dont see alot of people carrying around bombs for "their protection" do you?
A gun is a weapon designed for death, if you live in the country, hunt for your own food and tend your own table, you have cause to have a fire arm for use to assist you in your need for survival.
If you live in a city, there is nowhere to hunt, you dont need to carry a weapon into a supermarket so you can kill your own chicken, if your carrying a firearm in a city, you have it for the purpose of killing or maiming another human being (whether you beleive it to be in self defence or not) and by carrying it you have justified to yourself that it is ok to do that.
While you Americans may say that you keep a gun for defending your property and your home, what good is your property or your home if youare not alive to enjoy it? In this country, the majority of thieves do not carry guns, they dont need to because no law respecting household keeps such a weapon, if someone breaks in it is more likely to happen when you are not at home, in the unlikely event that you are in the house, you may lose some of your belongings, but when are belongings worth losing life over? I would prefer to keep my life rather than protect a family heirloom.
A dear friend of mine is a drug, gun and violence researcher with an Australian Government Department solely devoted to researching crime statistics and assessing government policy in relation to those statistics. Just the other night we were talking about how they can release a statistic, from that the gun control lobby will cry loudly about how well gun control works, the pro gun lobby will scream about how if we had more guns it would be lower still, and some whacko will publish their address on a website for people to stalk them for making guns look bad. From their perspective its very frustrating. Do yourselves a favour and read the real statistics, not ones generated by a lobby. Go to the Government departments and read them, and contrary to all the conspiracy theorists out there, they don't make the results up. I know for a fact that they spend months and in some cases years travelling around interviewing all sorts of people, from Police to criminals to law abiding citizens gathering the raw data that goes into those statistics. Educate yourselves with real data and make an informed opinion.