How do the police protect against children from being shot by criminals in school? I'm not saying firearm ownership is the holy-grail. It doesn't stop ALL crime, it can't prevent every form of crime. My not owning a firearm also would not change the fact that criminals have them and often obtain them illegally.
The above pretty much is my answer to your second point, but with some additions. Again, carrying a concealed firearm increases my chances of survival if I am unlucky enough to find myself in a bad situation which would threaten my life. It's not a cure all nor does it make me invincible. I can still be run over by a car while crossing at the crosswalk. Secondly, I wouldn't shoot an unarmed robber nor give anything to an unarmed robber. Perhaps you missed the part where I commented that I would be reluctant to kill another and overlooked my reference to personal responsibility on which you also agreed.
But...I would find the actual number of firearm owners more useful than the amount of firearms per person.
Clearly not everyone in the U.S. owns a gun. Furthermore, extra firearms are a moot point. I can have 50 guns, but at most I can use 2 at a time (or perhaps four if I'm barefoot, but then I can't aim very well). One well-placed bullet is far more effective than two wildly fired ones. And two people owning guns presents more of an effect than one person owning two.
Other effects can also be at play besides the strict number of gun owners, especially when comparing different regions, states, or governments.
Those are interesting results.
However, I think the argument is flawed. If I remember right, you need more evidence for a causual link (i.e "you find that more guns caused more crime"). You would have to prove it was not the result of societal or economic change, or a myriad of other variables (such as population growth and population density change).
When it comes down to it, statistics are just piss in the wind unless one can fix all other variables while just changing the percentage of the population owning and carrying concealed firearms.
One can't just look at one variables and ignore others in a complicated system such as our society. Even Lott's arguments fail in this examination. All that is proved is a correlation between increased gun ownership and crime. I can quickly prove a correlation between population growth and crime rates too, and still it means nothing.
And once again, I feel this is entirely on the wrong track. One actually needs to prove that firearm ownership is more detrimental to society than beneficial. And that applies to more than just crime rates.
First, I'm not clear on what you mean by "protect children from being shoot"? Do you mean preventing accidental shootings? Or do you mean preventing kids from shooting other kids?
The answer to both is similar. Both come down to training and responsibility. I grew up in a house filled with guns. However, all but 1 were locked up in a gun cabinet without ammo. The ammo was stored elsewhere also in a locked cabinet. So I couldn't very well shoot myself. I'd be more likely to hurt myself climbing a tree. But my parents did more than just lock up the ammo and firearms. They also taught me a deep respect for guns. Guns are capable of killing, as that is undeniably one of their primary purposes (that's not to say they can't be used for sport and some are designed specifically for that). This meant that I was taught from an early age that one never points a gun at something unless you are willing to kill it. That includes realizing what is beyond your target if you miss. This also means I didn't ever get to go running around the house pointing guns at my friends, even if they were play guns and colored orange. A gun is a gun, whether made of plastic, or the real thing, they were only to be shown respect in my household. My dad was very strict in enforcing this idea and for that I thank him. Part of owning a gun is respecting them as well. If I ever need to use a gun in defense of myself, I fully realize that the one I am shooting at very likely may die. I intend to maim, but if that is not an option, I will reluctantly kill.
Secondly, as for the sniper. Firearms are not a cure all, solve all defense (just as nuclear weapons are not a cure all, solve all defense). However, as pointed out in previous posts, many times just the knowledge that others in the area may be carrying firearms will prevent a crime from occurring. Or perhaps you meant that if we banned firearms, the sniper wouldn't have been able to obtain one? I'm afraid that I don't have any evidence off-hand to back this up, but I think more stolen and otherwise illegally obtained firearms are used in crimes than legally owned firearms.
And again, it comes down to the benefits and disadvantages. The founders of this nation believed that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, and I for one feel the same. For instance, sometimes riots break out from peaceful demonstrations, yet no one bans the peaceful demonstrations.
Well, there are many disadvantages to this idea, not least of which is government intrusion. I'd rather the government increased enforcement rather than waste money on something that is not currently feasible. But don't take my word for it, take a look at this Fox News article on this very topic:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Because gun ownership is considered a right, and driving a car is considered a priveledge.
That would be like getting a license to speak freely. Granted, a lot of people need to take a course on the power of words and the importance of research before speaking...but we consider the benefits of free speech to outweigh the benefits (and dangers) of requiring such a thing. Same for gun ownership.
Of course, it should be every gun owners moral responsibility to take some sort of safety/handling course.
The problem is that a lot of people think that using a gun is as easy as pulling the trigger....
Slashdot Mirror
How do the police protect against children from being shot by criminals in school? I'm not saying firearm ownership is the holy-grail. It doesn't stop ALL crime, it can't prevent every form of crime. My not owning a firearm also would not change the fact that criminals have them and often obtain them illegally.
The above pretty much is my answer to your second point, but with some additions. Again, carrying a concealed firearm increases my chances of survival if I am unlucky enough to find myself in a bad situation which would threaten my life. It's not a cure all nor does it make me invincible. I can still be run over by a car while crossing at the crosswalk. Secondly, I wouldn't shoot an unarmed robber nor give anything to an unarmed robber. Perhaps you missed the part where I commented that I would be reluctant to kill another and overlooked my reference to personal responsibility on which you also agreed.
But...I would find the actual number of firearm owners more useful than the amount of firearms per person.
Clearly not everyone in the U.S. owns a gun. Furthermore, extra firearms are a moot point. I can have 50 guns, but at most I can use 2 at a time (or perhaps four if I'm barefoot, but then I can't aim very well). One well-placed bullet is far more effective than two wildly fired ones. And two people owning guns presents more of an effect than one person owning two.
Other effects can also be at play besides the strict number of gun owners, especially when comparing different regions, states, or governments.
Those are interesting results. However, I think the argument is flawed. If I remember right, you need more evidence for a causual link (i.e "you find that more guns caused more crime"). You would have to prove it was not the result of societal or economic change, or a myriad of other variables (such as population growth and population density change). When it comes down to it, statistics are just piss in the wind unless one can fix all other variables while just changing the percentage of the population owning and carrying concealed firearms. One can't just look at one variables and ignore others in a complicated system such as our society. Even Lott's arguments fail in this examination. All that is proved is a correlation between increased gun ownership and crime. I can quickly prove a correlation between population growth and crime rates too, and still it means nothing. And once again, I feel this is entirely on the wrong track. One actually needs to prove that firearm ownership is more detrimental to society than beneficial. And that applies to more than just crime rates.
Here's an idea. Report the gun as stolen and keep track of the serial numbers. Problem solved.
First, I'm not clear on what you mean by "protect children from being shoot"? Do you mean preventing accidental shootings? Or do you mean preventing kids from shooting other kids?
The answer to both is similar. Both come down to training and responsibility. I grew up in a house filled with guns. However, all but 1 were locked up in a gun cabinet without ammo. The ammo was stored elsewhere also in a locked cabinet. So I couldn't very well shoot myself. I'd be more likely to hurt myself climbing a tree. But my parents did more than just lock up the ammo and firearms. They also taught me a deep respect for guns. Guns are capable of killing, as that is undeniably one of their primary purposes (that's not to say they can't be used for sport and some are designed specifically for that). This meant that I was taught from an early age that one never points a gun at something unless you are willing to kill it. That includes realizing what is beyond your target if you miss. This also means I didn't ever get to go running around the house pointing guns at my friends, even if they were play guns and colored orange. A gun is a gun, whether made of plastic, or the real thing, they were only to be shown respect in my household. My dad was very strict in enforcing this idea and for that I thank him. Part of owning a gun is respecting them as well. If I ever need to use a gun in defense of myself, I fully realize that the one I am shooting at very likely may die. I intend to maim, but if that is not an option, I will reluctantly kill.
Secondly, as for the sniper. Firearms are not a cure all, solve all defense (just as nuclear weapons are not a cure all, solve all defense). However, as pointed out in previous posts, many times just the knowledge that others in the area may be carrying firearms will prevent a crime from occurring. Or perhaps you meant that if we banned firearms, the sniper wouldn't have been able to obtain one? I'm afraid that I don't have any evidence off-hand to back this up, but I think more stolen and otherwise illegally obtained firearms are used in crimes than legally owned firearms.
And again, it comes down to the benefits and disadvantages. The founders of this nation believed that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, and I for one feel the same. For instance, sometimes riots break out from peaceful demonstrations, yet no one bans the peaceful demonstrations.
Well, there are many disadvantages to this idea, not least of which is government intrusion. I'd rather the government increased enforcement rather than waste money on something that is not currently feasible. But don't take my word for it, take a look at this Fox News article on this very topic:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Because gun ownership is considered a right, and driving a car is considered a priveledge. That would be like getting a license to speak freely. Granted, a lot of people need to take a course on the power of words and the importance of research before speaking...but we consider the benefits of free speech to outweigh the benefits (and dangers) of requiring such a thing. Same for gun ownership. Of course, it should be every gun owners moral responsibility to take some sort of safety/handling course. The problem is that a lot of people think that using a gun is as easy as pulling the trigger....