Gun control

[Gwydion]

Gwydion- Gosh, let it go. We did this discussion earlier remember, when you were telling us about the federal regulations? More restrictions- ok, point to point. from manufacturer to seller and every resell- register the gun. This way we know where guns are moving, who's selling them to criminal and how many phoney sales occur. For liability- strict civil liability and criminal punishments more severe.

That's it? We've been having this debate ranging all over the place and the only gun control you want is registration? Why didn't you just say, "All I want is registration" when I asked? I know I've asked for a clear definition at least twice before this. You kept refering to "more restrictions" and restrictions on sales, I thought you wanted to ban more classes of weapons.

Well, the problem with registration is that there are a lot of politicians who want more than that. We've got people like Diane Feinstein in office who admitted that if she could have gotten the votes to ban all guns should would have. It comes back to that old 'rhetoric': registration leads to confiscation. However, this is more than just simple rhetoric in our country, it has actually happened.

California has a state-level ban on many semi-automatic firearms. However, the ban included a grandfather clause so that people who owned the weapons could keep them. They "just" had to be registered with the state. There was pretty wide-spread noncompliance but quite a few people did register their guns. The problem is that a court ruled later that some aspect of the law was illegal. As a result, those individuals who trusted the California government and registered their guns got paid a visit... And had their rifles taken without compensation.

I've heard of some other situations in this country, but I don't know the details about those.

Even if this type of thing is a worst case scenario, as I mentioned earlier registration is not at all a proven crime fighting tool. I believe you mentioned that it had more value as a deterrant, but I think that's pretty iffy, too. For one thing, as we saw in the California case there's a lot of noncompliance with registration. Additionally, there are people in places of power willing to skirt the law. In Chicago, for example, in order to have a handgun you need to have license. However, criminals can still get handguns by buying them from the police. I read a recent story of a man killed in Chicago by a gun that had been illegally owned by two different cops. Supposedly at one point something in the area of 11 million dollars worth of drugs and guns was found to be missing from Chicago police evidence rooms.

You think registration is beneficial, let's wait and see what happens in Canada first. It hasn't worked out for them so far.

Common hold-up.

Hypothetical situations are meaningless in the context of the gun control argument.

 

[welsh]

Well, I'd like to hear from the Canadians on what they think of their gun control. I have heard of quite a few of them looking over the boarder and thinking "Hey, what's with those Americans?"

I don't know how many times I have said to you that I am not supporting banning all guns. But better control and definitely better police. I also have to say that I am supportive of banning automatic weapons. I can understand the collector's desire- but you don't really need an Uzi to defend your home, can't really hunt with one, and the danger of using one in self defense where other folks might get hit by stray bullets kind of works against that.

If you want to have a gun collector who has Uzis in the house, then he has to be held to a strict standard of liability so that the guns don't get trafficked as automatic weapons. That's potentially easy. Remove part of the weapon and place it in a safety deposit box in a bank. THe person still has the ability to deal with other collectors, but the danger of having the gun commit a crime is reduced. Perfect? No. But better.

Would registration work? Sure, you can expect holes to happen. That sad state of thefts from police evidence rooms reflects the problems with our police control, but the answer there is more oversight and holding police performance to a higher standard. In the old post I said that the Social Contract needed to be constructed. Well we got one here, people should try to enforce it. We make a mistake when we fail to police our own police.

But lets take the news bit that started the last "guns" discussion- Guns being bought legally in the Southern states, being shipped to the Northern states and sold on the streets. Someone is making a profit by allowing unregulated guns to proliferate on the streets of cities (and its that part of our society- lower income, minority communities) were the homicide rate is most rampant. Someone should be held accountable.

Even if you have federal registration from manufacturer to retailer, than you still allow for guns to move from person to person too easily. ON the otherhand if you put an issue of liability on that person, as well as a registration system than you know who is buying lots of guns. If he's a collector than the guns shouldn't hit the street. But if he's allowing the guns to hit the street- nail his ass to the wall. THe line between collector and dealer is gone.

At the same time there are benefits- IF the police are going to break up a domestic disturbance- a very dangerous situation, then they might be better off knowing there is a gun in the house. If they are going to do a drug raid on a suspect and the registration shows that this is a person who owns an arsenal, then the police are more cautious.

As Sander pointed out, the issue is not so much "will the person commit a crime," but is it easier to commit the crime. THat ease to commit a crime makes it easy. YOu pointed out earlier that a person could just as easily run over a person as shoot them. I don't think that's exactly true. There is this old film called the Battle of Algiers, its in French (sorry) where the terrorists are doing drive-bys, but have more trouble when they try to run over folks. It's possible to do a bankrobbery with a bow and arrow or a crossbow, but a lot harder.

Still surprised that you are unwilling to consider this hypothetical. The question is easy- how many victims of gun violence can you identitfy?

Here it is again- give it a try.

WIth regard to the notion of victims- think about this. Common hold-up.

A couple guys buy a gun from a pawn shop, decide to rob a fast food store.

In the process these, kids, on their adrenaline rush, shoot the cashier.

Lets say that the manager decides to protest. They shoot him too, but only wounded.

A concerned citizen gets up, and has a gun, draws, shoots one criminal.

Other criminal returns fire- kills him.

How many victims?

 

[Ugly John]

three

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Gwydion, you also seem to ignore the fact that other countries that have banned handguns have a much lower murder rate than we do in the US. Explain to me, how is burglar going to hold up a gas station if he doesn't have a gun? With a knife? Granted it has happened before, but compared to robberies with guns, it is a very small percentage. You can also say that the criminals will then be able to get their guns illegaly (because they're criminals, of course), but lets say they did, do you think that if the attendant had a gun too, it would make a difference? By the time he reached for his gun, he would get shot. The times that having a gun has made a difference for the victim are extremely rare. It all comes down to the first draw, and the criminal will always have the advantage of surprise, therefore they will almost always draw first. Hell, if having a gun really made a difference in self-defence, why isn't that the people that get robbed never stop the criminals. The people that do are the cops. You did say that 80-90 percent of the US population owned guns. Where are all the citizen arrests?

As for gun control being an infringement on my freedoms and the whole slippery slope that if they take are guns, they'll take our freedom of speech, and then they'll take our kids(just kidding on that one), that argument is as big of a pile of corn-studded shit as I've heard in quite a while. You have heard of Locke's social contract? If everyone gives up their rights to handguns, I sure as hell wouldn't mind giving up the right to mines. The reason why people would be willing to give up this right is because handguns cause more harm than they ever will good. It isn't like cars and steak knives where the good they bring far outweighs the harm. I also think that rifles do bring more good than they do harm and they therefore shouldn't be outlawed. Sure you have kids shooting themselves by accident, but that is just a major irresponsibilty on the parents part and not the gun. It will also be a lot more difficult for criminals to hold up a store with a rifle because it jusn't isn't as easy to conceal.

As for our right to bear arms and form militias, if the government ever did become oppressive, we sure as hell wouldn't be fighting back with handguns, but with other bigger guns.

Also, fuck the collectors. Any asshole who is inconsiderate enough to put his need to collect fucking uzis because he can't find a better hobby over the general safety of the society around him can quite frankly go suck fat elephant balls.

By the way, I'm just against handguns and semi-automatic weapons, not all firearms in general.

 

[welsh]

.
Also, fuck the collectors. Any asshole who is inconsiderate enough to put his need to collect fucking uzis because he can't find a better hobby over the general safety of the society around him can quite frankly go suck fat elephant balls.

Nicely said. I have made a similar comment, once a long time ago. But realistically? Probably never happen.

three

Ok, JOhn, why only 3? Manager, cashier and customer?

The reason I ask is this- Technically much of the numbers that Gwydion has used has dealt with homicides. But with modern medicine lots of folks just get wounded and might get lost in the numbers.

Some might say about the criminal, well he brought the gun in and broke the law, thus he's responsible for felony murder (even if he didn't shoot anyone) and thus a criminal. He's dead, no great loss. Ok. Personally, I don't have much patience for criminals, but there are plenty of folks who would say, "all life is sacred and you have to count him too". Sure his family will suffer, maybe he could be reformed into a good citizen.

But is that all?

What about the family of the guy who got shot (concerned citizen)- what are they going to do now that the man isn't bringing home an income? ANd what about everyone else connected to those deaths?

What about the rest of the people in the restaurant, assuming there are any, - what if they suffer some prolonged sense of psychological disturbance or trauma?

What about the business itself? Won't they suffer loss of business because people won't want to risk their necks to go there?

What about larger insecurity, greater sense of fear among the public that violent crime is all around them?

One can take this too far, of course, but the point is simple. The scope of the size of "victim" is potentially very large and may not be measured in the "cost" of gun violence.

Now, I know, perhaps the crime would have happened without guns. Or maybe they could have gotten guns illegally. Maybe. But as Ancient and others have pointed out, the problem is that guns make it easier, and thus increase the risk of such events.

 

[Choro Ex]

Hmmm.... how about Arab states? In Afghanistan every new born babies were given AK-47 and having RPG-7 in your jeep is normal.
That's because the Taliban gov put a harsh Muslim law, where a thief could have his arms chopped, and death sentence for murder. In Lebanon, you could see UZI and AK-47 sold in stores, but they got lower murder rate than US. yeah, in case of rebellion this country became really, really dangerous but relatively safe during peace time.
In Indonesia, it's hard to obtain guns, so I armed myself with my Air Pistols and Dutch Infantry sabre (*sigh*). Even CO2s were hard to get. But there were lots of criminals here, some even armed themself with SMGs. Even the rebels in Aceh armed with AK47. And now our citizen almost defenseless against all burglar, robber, thief and terrorist....
Lets ask JR's Opinion. I heard in Belgium the gun law are not so strict? Also perhaps some of Swiss guys, i heard every house were issued an Assault Rifle there.

But how can a Gun law affect criminals? They usually use illegal guns....

Kalashnikov, during interview with US TV said this "In Soviet Union, guns were illegal. But no matter harsh the law, the criminals always got guns....."

 

[Ugly John]

three

Ok, JOhn, why only 3?

Cashier, manager, customer. (gun shot victims) Burglars are not victims.
Other customer are victims too, but some of them will milk this up with post-trauma crap.
familys are victims too.

i get the wide spectrum of victims, but truth is only three people were thru victims at that perticular time.

 

[welsh]

Hmmm.... how about Arab states? In Afghanistan every new born babies were given AK-47 and having RPG-7 in your jeep is normal.
That's because the Taliban gov put a harsh Muslim law, where a thief could have his arms chopped, and death sentence for murder. In Lebanon, you could see UZI and AK-47 sold in stores, but they got lower murder rate than US. yeah, in case of rebellion this country became really, really dangerous but relatively safe during peace time......"

Yes, that is the deterrent effect of police enforcement. You break the law (murder) you die. But like you said, remember what happened when Lebanon has a civil war.

In Indonesia, it's hard to obtain guns, so I armed myself with my Air Pistols and Dutch Infantry sabre (*sigh*). Even CO2s were hard to get. But there were lots of criminals here, some even armed themself with SMGs. Even the rebels in Aceh armed with AK47. And now our citizen almost defenseless against all burglar, robber, thief and terrorist....
Lets ask JR's Opinion. I heard in Belgium the gun law are not so strict? Also perhaps some of Swiss guys, i heard every house were issued an Assault Rifle there.

But how can a Gun law affect criminals? They usually use illegal guns....

Hey Chloro- I actually responded to this in an earlier post elsewhere, and sadly argued that the problems of a country like Indonesia are not quite the same as the problems of most of the European country.

As you argued above, there is an aspect to this that is cultural. But in your case you have a couple of things going on. SOme folks are able to get guns from the government, its not always official although sometimes it is. You also have a country made up of hundreds of islands that are easy to access by boat. Piracy and smuggling are still problems. Considering how many weapons are floating around your country's neighborhood, it shouldn't be that hard to get a gun.

My brother used to work in Indonesia and one of his friends offered to get him a gun. Its not that hard.

But that goes to the idea- unregulated guns lead to greater social insecurity.

Kalashnikov, during interview with US TV said this "In Soviet Union, guns were illegal. But no matter harsh the law, the criminals always got guns....."

Yes, and often its pretty easy. This is why its important to control the streams of commerce in weapons. In the US and Europe, which are wealthy countries, it should be easier to do than a country like Indonesia.

The problem is that once you know people have guns near you, you want guns too. But by you having a gun, you create fear in other folks that you might use it against them, and thus puts pressure on them to have a gun. As ethnic groups get armed, they look to each other with suspicion. If the state is incapable of protecting them or represses them, then they look to the state with suspicion as well.

At the international level, this type of interaction is called the Security Dilemma, and was discussed by Robert Jarvis. Another scholar, Brian Job, has applied this to the interior of developing states in a book called, the Insecurity Dilemma.

Basically, your fear of your neighbor creates an incentive to arm yourself, creating more fear in other neighbors, escalating the tension that leads to violence.

 

[welsh]

Cashier, manager, customer. (gun shot victims) Burglars are not victims.
Other customer are victims too, but some of them will milk this up with post-trauma crap.
familys are victims too.

i get the wide spectrum of victims, but truth is only three people were thru victims at that perticular time.

Yes, you're right. but only in terms of physical wounds.

But the problem is that damage is often not just physical, but emotional, psychological and financial.

Those damages are very hard to measure.

 

[Gwydion]

Well, I'd like to hear from the Canadians on what they think of their gun control. I have heard of quite a few of them looking over the boarder and thinking "Hey, what's with those Americans?"

It's interesting that you suggest that. I know there's growing anger over the registration program they started. It's costing them a lot more time and money than they were told, and it hasn't solved any crimes yet.

I don't know how many times I have said to you that I am not supporting banning all guns. But better control and definitely better police. I also have to say that I am supportive of banning automatic weapons. I can understand the collector's desire- but you don't really need an Uzi to defend your home, can't really hunt with one, and the danger of using one in self defense where other folks might get hit by stray bullets kind of works against that.

If you want to have a gun collector who has Uzis in the house, then he has to be held to a strict standard of liability so that the guns don't get trafficked as automatic weapons. That's potentially easy. Remove part of the weapon and place it in a safety deposit box in a bank. THe person still has the ability to deal with other collectors, but the danger of having the gun commit a crime is reduced. Perfect? No. But better.

Automatic weapons aren't really much of an issue. They've been controlled by the BATFE since 1934, and they're very rarely used in crimes.

Would registration work? Sure, you can expect holes to happen.

But the real question is what does it do? How do you prove that gun registration is of a real value to society to bother spending the resources on it? I defy you to produce one example of a registration system that solved any significant number of crimes. If it can't do that much, why even have it?

But lets take the news bit that started the last "guns" discussion- Guns being bought legally in the Southern states, being shipped to the Northern states and sold on the streets. Someone is making a profit by allowing unregulated guns to proliferate on the streets of cities (and its that part of our society- lower income, minority communities) were the homicide rate is most rampant. Someone should be held accountable.

Sorry, Welsh, there are some problems with that story. See, it seems that quite a few of the states that were high on the list already have pretty restrictive gun control. In fact, number 3 on the list is California which seems to be competing with New Jersey for the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Number 1 on the list is Virginia, which has a law preventing people from making more than one handgun purchase a month to prevent straw man sales. This doesn't fit the "less gun control is causing the problem" argument. Ironically, or perhaps not, the gun control organization making some of the claims (Americans for Gun Safety) in this argument echoes the NRAs own mantras: The police aren't doing enough to enforce existing gun laws. Link

Even if you have federal registration from manufacturer to retailer, than you still allow for guns to move from person to person too easily. ON the otherhand if you put an issue of liability on that person, as well as a registration system than you know who is buying lots of guns. If he's a collector than the guns shouldn't hit the street. But if he's allowing the guns to hit the street- nail his ass to the wall. THe line between collector and dealer is gone.

Registration may help this problem, but if Americans for Gun Safety and the NRA are right, why should we believe that these new laws will be enforced any better than the current laws? For that matter,
if they're right, why should we spend the resources implementing a costly nation-wide registration system when better enforcement of current laws and better police oversight could solve the problem to a large degree.

At the same time there are benefits- IF the police are going to break up a domestic disturbance- a very dangerous situation, then they might be better off knowing there is a gun in the house. If they are going to do a drug raid on a suspect and the registration shows that this is a person who owns an arsenal, then the police are more cautious.

Perhaps it would be beneficial in domestic violence situations to know if there's a gun in the house. Is that enough to justify the cost?

Somehow I have trouble imagining very many drug addicts having legally registered firearms. If this unlikely hypothetical situation were to occur, it probably would be beneficial. However, I have a feeling that in any situation like this the police simply assume the suspect is armed, and I don't think registration would do more than confirm that. I really don't even think it could be counted on to accurately represent how many or what type of guns the addict has. There'd be no telling what he sold or picked up, unless the cops that sold it to him happen to remember.

As Sander pointed out, the issue is not so much "will the person commit a crime," but is it easier to commit the crime. THat ease to commit a crime makes it easy. YOu pointed out earlier that a person could just as easily run over a person as shoot them. I don't think that's exactly true. There is this old film called the Battle of Algiers, its in French (sorry) where the terrorists are doing drive-bys, but have more trouble when they try to run over folks. It's possible to do a bankrobbery with a bow and arrow or a crossbow, but a lot harder.

Take any specific crime, it may not be as easy to do with a gun, you're right. However, if you decide that you're going to kill people and you want to kill a lot of people at once, that old man proved it can happen with a car. If you decide you're going to rob someone, you could do it armed with a knife. A lot of people compare the murder rates of the US and other countries as de facto proof that guns make crime easier. However, they don't compare the other crime rates. Try taking a look at Interpol's numbers, you might be shocked how many more cases of severe assault per 100,000 people Canada has than the US. In fact, of the crimes Interpol tracked, Canada had significantly more per 100,000 people than the US. Seeing as how the UK is the violent crime capital of the west, I'd imagine it's pretty much the same. The situation is similar over in Australia. Certain crimes, like murder, seem to be lower in these countries, but overall their crime rates are not lower.

Still surprised that you are unwilling to consider this hypothetical. The question is easy- how many victims of gun violence can you identitfy?

Welsh, any crime with any weapon is going to have more victims than just those immediately affected. If they cops showed up instead of someone with a concealed handgun and one of them got killed, there would still be the same number of victims. What if they tried to rob the store, and the CCW holder shot and killed one and the other surrendered? How many victims were saved there? What if?

See why hypothetical situations don't work well to prove a point?

 

[Gwydion]

Gwydion, you also seem to ignore the fact that other countries that have banned handguns have a much lower murder rate than we do in the US.

Because that's one crime, and these same countries can have more instances of other violent crimes. For example, the UK is the overall violent crime capital of the west, even though they have far fewer guns than Americans do. Explain to me why guns so selectively augment crimes, if guns indeed are to blames.

Explain to me, how is burglar going to hold up a gas station if he doesn't have a gun?

That's easy. The poor clerk behind the counter isn't going to have a gun either. The robber can at least hold up the gas station with the confidence that the law-abiding worker behind the counter will probably even more poorly armed. The cops won't get there soon enough to stop it from happening, the guy could easily get the cash and run with just a knife or maybe even unarmed.

You can also say that the criminals will then be able to get their guns illegaly (because they're criminals, of course), but lets say they did, do you think that if the attendant had a gun too, it would make a difference?

It might. Guns are used defensively on a daily basis in this country. What if someone else in the store had a gun. The criminal might not have even realized someone else was in there, and while the criminal is focused on the clerk, the law abiding citizen draws his gun and aims. Before the perp realizes what's happening, it's too late for him to do anything about it. His only options are to drop his gun or get shot. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

The times that having a gun has made a difference for the victim are extremely rare.

See, we're getting into that problem area of statistics again. Suffice it to say, the consensus of all the studies I've seen is that several times a day in America firearms are successfully used defensively.

The people that do are the cops.

Who are just citizens employed by the states and cities to catch criminals. Oddly enough, they use guns to defend themselves in that line of work.

You did say that 80-90 percent of the US population owned guns. Where are all the citizen arrests?

No, that's not what I said. I said the number of guns in private ownership in this nation is approximately equal to 80 to 90% of the population. As the article I linked to put it, there's nearly one gun for every citizen, but the number of gun owners is fewer than that. I don't know of any government organization that keeps track of that data, so I don't know the percentage. I do, however, know that gun ownership is less common in cities than it is in rural areas. Since crime is more common in cities, gun owners simply have less chance to use their firearms defensively.

As for gun control being an infringement on my freedoms and the whole slippery slope that if they take are guns, they'll take our freedom of speech, and then they'll take our kids(just kidding on that one), that argument is as big of a pile of corn-studded shit as I've heard in quite a while.

Strawman alert here. How did that song go... "If I only had a brain..."

Actually, I said registration leads to confiscation. This has already been the case in California.

And of course, if you simply ignore the second Amendment, there are legal ramifications. When the right of the people in the second amendment no longer means what it says, how long till the meaning of the words in the first and fourth amendments is lost? After all, both of those contain the very same phrase. Of course, that's long term speculation, but the trend is already in place. Gun registration may not necessarily lead to loss of other rights, but it's not hard at all to apply the same logic that gun controllers use to something like free speech.

Sure you have kids shooting themselves by accident, but that is just a major irresponsibilty on the parents part and not the gun.

But it's not the responsibility of the criminals when a crime is committed with the gun?

As for our right to bear arms and form militias, if the government ever did become oppressive, we sure as hell wouldn't be fighting back with handguns, but with other bigger guns.

Heh. Tell that to the Army, apparently they don't know to stop issuing sidearms to their soldiers.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Gwydion, you also seem to ignore the fact that other countries that have banned handguns have a much lower murder rate than we do in the US.

Because that's one crime, and these same countries can have more instances of other violent crimes. For example, the UK is the overall violent crime capital of the west, even though they have far fewer guns than Americans do.

If you could get past your blind, rabid devotion to guns, you would see that I was specifically referring to murder for the reason that handguns are more brutal and therefore are partially to blame for our higher rates of murder.

Explain to me why guns so selectively augment crimes, if guns indeed are to blames.

Again. Murder. the inclusion of guns in robberies can augment an assault to something much worse. Do you need a dictionary?

Explain to me, how is burglar going to hold up a gas station if he doesn't have a gun?

That's easy. The poor clerk behind the counter isn't going to have a gun either. The robber can at least hold up the gas station with the confidence that the law-abiding worker behind the counter will probably even more poorly armed. The cops won't get there soon enough to stop it from happening, the guy could easily get the cash and run with just a knife or maybe even unarmed.

I just love the appeal to pity by portraying the clerk as some terrified little bitch. A bat and a pair of balls can easily prevent that situation and with less deadlier results. Whereas with a gun, you can just aim and shoot, with a knife, you need to lunge across the counter, giving the clerk ample opportunity to step back, grab a bat, and smack the motherfucker over the head with it. Granted, not everyone would react to that situation like I described, but what I'm trying to point out is that they would have a better chance of defending themselves and preventing the crime than they would if the criminal was armed with a gun. Also, it doesn't take much courage to get a handgun and make a stick up, where as with a knife or barehanded, you need to be brave (or crazy) to actually rob the store. therefore, less criminals would be willing to commit a crime under this situation. These factors will ultimately help reduce crime.

Also the gas station is just one scenario. Do you think a criminal is willing to rob a bank with a knife? I think not.

You can also say that the criminals will then be able to get their guns illegaly (because they're criminals, of course), but lets say they did, do you think that if the attendant had a gun too, it would make a difference?

It might. Guns are used defensively on a daily basis in this country. What if someone else in the store had a gun. The criminal might not have even realized someone else was in there, and while the criminal is focused on the clerk, the law abiding citizen draws his gun and aims. Before the perp realizes what's happening, it's too late for him to do anything about it. His only options are to drop his gun or get shot. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

You've been watching too many movies bud. I bet you can relate to Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver.

"Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.
"

Fucking hilarious...

The times that having a gun has made a difference for the victim are extremely rare.

See, we're getting into that problem area of statistics again. Suffice it to say, the consensus of all the studies I've seen is that several times a day in America firearms are successfully used defensively.

And the number of criminals that commit crimes with handguns are ten times higher than the number of people that actually prevent crime with it. How do I know? Because I actually have a source to back my claims up and that actually will shed some light on your claims also. Surprise!!! it's a source

The people that do are the cops.

Who are just citizens employed by the states and cities to catch criminals. Oddly enough, they use guns to defend themselves in that line of work.

Your use of tortured logic is appalling. A cop isn't just a citizen who has a badge and a gun that goes around making arrests. He is the legal enforcer of the law. As for him carrying a gun, when I say that we should ban handguns, I don't mean that cops shouldn't be able to have them either. That's ludicruous when considering that their job is to actually go out and catch criminals. Banning handguns would also be doing them a great favor by making their jobs safer too.

You did say that 80-90 percent of the US population owned guns. Where are all the citizen arrests?

No, that's not what I said. I said the number of guns in private ownership in this nation is approximately equal to 80 to 90% of the population. As the article I linked to put it, there's nearly one gun for every citizen, but the number of gun owners is fewer than that. I don't know of any government organization that keeps track of that data, so I don't know the percentage. I do, however, know that gun ownership is less common in cities than it is in rural areas. Since crime is more common in cities, gun owners simply have less chance to use their firearms defensively.

More fallacies. You truly are a blind, gun obsessed maniac. Not only are you jumping to a false conclusion and are providing no facts to back this statement up, but by saying that the reason gun owners don't defend themselves as often is because there are more crimes in urban areas where there are less guns, you are also excluding many factors such as the number of actual guns per owner, what jobs these gun owners have, etc, and other factors not even related to guns. There are more fallacies in this statement then there is 20 pounds of shit in a ten pound bag.

As for gun control being an infringement on my freedoms and the whole slippery slope that if they take are guns, they'll take our freedom of speech, and then they'll take our kids(just kidding on that one), that argument is as big of a pile of corn-studded shit as I've heard in quite a while.

Strawman alert here. How did that song go... "If I only had a brain..."

Actually, I said registration leads to confiscation. This has already been the case in California.

And of course, if you simply ignore the second Amendment, there are legal ramifications. When the right of the people in the second amendment no longer means what it says, how long till the meaning of the words in the first and fourth amendments is lost? After all, both of those contain the very same phrase. Of course, that's long term speculation, but the trend is already in place. Gun registration may not necessarily lead to loss of other rights, but it's not hard at all to apply the same logic that gun controllers use to something like free speech.

Do you even know what a straw man fallacy is? I've confronted all your arguments on gun control head on. If anything, you're the one that selectively attacks the weakest portions of everyones arguments and skews them in a way to lend credence to your deluded views on handguns. Why didn't you include my quote on supporting rifles??? Would it be because if you did, it would make your whole second amendment theory utter bullshit??? I thought so...

Not only that, but you repeated that same slippery slope fallacy. Since it's obvious that you don't know jack shit about logic, here's a little site that could hopefully enlighten you:

Definition of a Slippery Slope (did you notice the first example??? isn't that a kawinky-dink!)

Sure you have kids shooting themselves by accident, but that is just a major irresponsibilty on the parents part and not the gun.

But it's not the responsibility of the criminals when a crime is committed with the gun?

You truly are a straw loving motherfucker. A parent wouldn't purposely hurt their child by leaving a gun around, whereas a criminal would use a gun on purpose to commit a crime.

Also now that I reread that previous statement, what was the point you were trying to make? Are you trying to imply that I don't think criminals should be held responsible when they commit a crime with a gun because I believe that a parent should be held accountable for being irresponsible and putting their child in harms way by leaving a gun in their reach? Truly slanderous, pointless, and full of shit.

As for our right to bear arms and form militias, if the government ever did become oppressive, we sure as hell wouldn't be fighting back with handguns, but with other bigger guns.

Heh. Tell that to the Army, apparently they don't know to stop issuing sidearms to their soldiers.

Yeah, those handguns do make a rather nice compliment to the M-16's they carry.

This is the last post I'm going to address to you as its obvious you are a dogmatic, shit-for-brains numbskull who can't argue properly. If there are any other supporters of handguns who would like to make a proper argument, please do us all a favor and do so.

 

[welsh]

Before continuing, Ancient, man! I know this is a heated argument but take it easy! This is just going to get nasty if we call each other names. I'm on your side with this, but lets keep civil.

It's interesting that you suggest that. I know there's growing anger over the registration program they started. It's costing them a lot more time and money than they were told, and it hasn't solved any crimes yet.?"

Again, I'd like to hear fromt eh Canadians as well as your sources about the effectiveness of registration.

Automatic weapons aren't really much of an issue. They've been controlled by the BATFE since 1934, and they're very rarely used in crimes.

ANd thank God for that. If you would believe some of the NRA rhetoric there would be people using automatic weapons for self defense in crowded streets.

What would be the situation without regulation? More automatic weapons widely available.

But the real question is what does it do? How do you prove that gun registration is of a real value to society to bother spending the resources on it? I defy you to produce one example of a registration system that solved any significant number of crimes. If it can't do that much, why even have it? .

Quick answer-
What is the real cost and who pays for it- generally it would be gun owners- they pay for the licensing fees- just like car owners, so no great loss there. You enjoy it, you pay for it.

Well we can look at registration systems- if you look at the registration of other dangerous articles, one finds greater control of hazards. That's true in hazardous wastes and its true in automobiles.

Can we really say that Canada's low crime rates are not derivative of gun registration?

Sorry, Welsh, there are some problems with that story. See, it seems that quite a few of the states that were high on the list already have pretty restrictive gun control. In fact, number 3 on the list is California which seems to be competing with New Jersey for the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Number 1 on the list is Virginia, which has a law preventing people from making more than one handgun purchase a month to prevent straw man sales. This doesn't fit the "less gun control is causing the problem" argument. Ironically, or perhaps not, the gun control organization making some of the claims (Americans for Gun Safety) in this argument echoes the NRAs own mantras: The police aren't doing enough to enforce existing gun laws. Link

Its an interesting article Gwydion and thanks for the post.

But it also shoots you in the foot. To a certain extent California is an odd case. YOu are talking about the 9th largest economy in the world, remember, and that produces a lot of guns. Even with strict gun controls, the sheer number of weapons in circulation matters. If you spend time out West, in California, it becomes pretty clear very soon that California is the economic center of that region. For example, without California, no Las Vegas.

So its a bad case. Otherwise, the argument seems to work on the position I articulated before and which both pro and anti- gun folks support- the cops aren't nearly effective as they should be. Why not, taxing policies. WHich I think answers your other point as well.

Perhaps it would be beneficial in domestic violence situations to know if there's a gun in the house. Is that enough to justify the cost?.

Considering that the historically most homicides are among acquaintances, that breaking up domestic disturbances are considered to be among the most dangerous activities cops do, sure, it would justify that expense. How many cops have we lost to gun violence?

Take any specific crime, it may not be as easy to do with a gun, you're right. However, if you decide that you're going to kill people and you want to kill a lot of people at once, that old man proved it can happen with a car. If you decide you're going to rob someone, you could do it armed with a knife. A lot of people compare the murder rates of the US and other countries as de facto proof that guns make crime easier. However, they don't compare the other crime rates. Try taking a look at Interpol's numbers, you might be shocked how many more cases of severe assault per 100,000 people Canada has than the US. In fact, of the crimes Interpol tracked, Canada had significantly more per 100,000 people than the US. Seeing as how the UK is the violent crime capital of the west, I'd imagine it's pretty much the same. The situation is similar over in Australia. Certain crimes, like murder, seem to be lower in these countries, but overall their crime rates are not lower.

Yes, I have looked at the numbers at interpol as well. But I am not exactly sure how they support your argument. The goal here is to lower the number of homicides. Also you have to figure in other issues- crime has escalated dramatically in Europe. I mean, when I was in London the police didn't have to carry guns!

Sure, in Canada they beat the crap out of each other- maybe its the long winters, the cold weather and too much alcohol. But that doesn't help explain why we have so many violent deaths to guns here in the US.

Welsh, any crime with any weapon is going to have more victims than just those immediately affected. If they cops showed up instead of someone with a concealed handgun and one of them got killed, there would still be the same number of victims. What if they tried to rob the store, and the CCW holder shot and killed one and the other surrendered? How many victims were saved there? What if?

See why hypothetical situations don't work well to prove a point?

Actually many of the costs would be the same- issues of insecurity, loss of business, trauma to witnesses.

Actually I think it raises a point very well. How can you measure the cost of guns to the benefits of guns unless you account from these numbers?

For example
We have discussed this before- that the numbers on defensive use of guns are very questionable just in terms of methods conducted.

By the way, Ancient, nice job finding those numbers. I saw some others elsewhere.

But lets go back to defensive use. How do you know that in many of those situations a gun was actually necessary. For example, a person with a bat, or even a loud voice, might have deterred a potential thief.

I will even give you one. Studies have found that the major deterrent to theft of households was the fear of theives that the people inside might be there and have a gun. This was done by survey of actual prisoners.

But the problem is, how do they know that the person has a gun in the first place? Why not wait till the person isn't home? Even if everyone had a gun, would that change the numbers significantly? Chances are thieves would time themselves more carefully, or choose other types of crime. Would that solution outweigh the benefits? You can't really say because your measurement of costs is so skewed in the direction of benefit.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Before continuing, Ancient, man! I know this is a heated argument but take it easy! This is just going to get nasty if we call each other names. I'm on your side with this, but lets keep civil.

Maybe I did go a bit overboard. Still, if there are two things that I can't stand, it's intellectual dishonesty and skewed logic. Heck, I would respect him a lot more even if he just came out and said, "yeah, I like handguns because I like to shoot at paper targets and hope one day I can put that training to good use on a criminal. Plus, feeling a gun in my hand gives me a feeling of empowerment that I otherwise wouldn't have."

Everyone has their vices. It's when you try and justify them with poor arguments that you lose your integrity. Also, it's obvious by other posts he's made and by what other forum members have said that he truly does have an obsession with guns.

 

[welsh]

Well, I looked at the Interpol data over the summer, and he's right that the interpol data does paint an interesting picture. I'll try to get another look at it this weekend, but actually the numbers are available on the internet.

I also have some crime data from the Economist World in Facts and while it doesn't point to homicides (unfortunately) it does make some interesting comparisons-

In 1999 for instance Sweden is #1 in both serious assaults and theft per capita! Sweden! I thought Jeez, I always thought Sweden was such a great place. US is 10th and 6th in comparison. (For the Dutch- 17 and 3- apparently you're more likely to steal from us but we are more likely to kick your ass for it).

WHen it comes to number of prisoners- US beats all with absolute total (by a lot), but Russia is number 1 per 100,000, with the US in #2. And still everyone thinks our cops aren't doing the job they should be.

I know, this says nothing about gun control per se, but there is something in the argument that the US is not, more crime ridden than the rest of the world, and that, porportionately, perhaps the number of crimes reflects our significantly larger population. But I am not totally convinced of that either.

Anyone know the total number of gun related homicides in England last year? Or in France? Germany or Japan?

Gwydion and I have gone back and forth on the some of the crime statistics on both Defense Use and Concealed weapons. But this is kind of like the use of scientific experts by lawyers- often the experts will tell you what you want them to, and you have to explore their methods.

Lott's work on Concealed weapons is highly suspect and his excuses regarding sample size are ridiculous. Kleck on defensive use though was revolutionary and at the time highly regarded. The problem seemed to come down to the way he did his survey. Research done on data from police reports points to another conclusion- but again that data could be biased as well.

However, since both Lott and Kleck did research that the anti-gun lobby should have done, but failed, in a sense they benefit from being controversial and from the lazy research of the anti-gun group. Research that has followed, testing both hasn't gotten the publicity even if the methods have been refined. Of course, the NRA can put its spin on it and it gets eaten up by the gun advocates.

That said, its still worrisome. To many folks are getting killed with guns, period.

What really worries me is that the same folks who buy the guns (whites in the suburbs or rural areas) generally have the least to fear- yet often use the notion of guns as self defense. Self defense against who? What's with the fear?

To be honest, I'd like to see how many of these folks are also members of the private militia movement.

Match that with rising conservativism and religiosity- could it be guns are a way to get around sexual frustration?

IF you take the notion that having guns deters violence than everyone should have a gun especially in urban areas where crime is high. One could almost see this almost comic hypothetical. A person pulls a gun on another on a city street. Everyone on the street whips out a gun. Problem starts when a guy on the next street sees the guns coming out and figures better get his gun out too (deter violence). SO he takes out a gun, not even seeing the first criminal. Of course once the gun comes out everyone else on that street has to take out their weapon. And so on.

Happily we don't live in a society with that much tension.

Like you I have no big beef against rifles- while handguns and automatic weapons are another matter.

 

[Briosafreak]

I know, this says nothing about gun control per se, but there is something in the argument that the US is not, more crime ridden than the rest of the world, and that, porportionately, perhaps the number of crimes reflects our significantly larger population. But I am not totally convinced of that either.

Anyone know the total number of gun related homicides in England last year? Or in France? Germany or Japan?

You can try to search from here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf
and here http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/states_crime.html

Oh and on the .pdf see page 3,you have the number of murders in EU countries and what are is comparision with the worse countries on that regard in the world (USA was the fifth worse in the world).

 

[welsh]

Jeez that was fast. Thanks Briosafreak.

The second site doesn't seem to work, but the UK site seems to have the needed info.

Gracias

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Although not exactly related to gun control, I have a quick question on the theft stats of Sweden. What is the exact policy for stopping and arresting a thief in Sweden. When I used to work in Walgreens, if we didn't have direct evidence that a person was stealing, we couldn't do anything. And lets say that we did see that they had, for example, stuck something in their pockets, we really couldn't arrest them and had to wait till they went outside so that a cop could officially arrest them. The most that we could do in that situation is tell them to put that stuff back, get the fuck out, and never come back.

If, for example, Sweden had a stricter policy on convicting and arresting thieves, it could explain why they have a higher theft stat. Murder, on the other hand, doesn't have as many "rules" surrounding it for obvious reasons.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Match that with rising conservativism and religiosity- could it be guns are a way to get around sexual frustration?

Whoa there... I'm Catholic and granted I'm not that conservative (I do agree with Bush's foreign policy even though domestically he is doing a terrible job at best), but I hope your not trying to link the above two with sexual frustration. Guns on the other hand...

The people that I have met that do love their handguns either do have some sexual dilemma that prevents them from getting laid, are a little off-kilter mentally, are just thug wannabes, or they're criminals 8) ...

Not the kinda people that should have handguns... 'cept for the thug wannabe's who are rather harmless but use guns to portray a false image and keep people from seeing them for the true pussies they are. I say we make ultra-realistic guns for them. Safer and the irony is just exquisite.

 

[APTYP]

Maybe I did go a bit overboard.

A bit?! How about calling Gwydion names on replies to EVERY quote? Never mind that 2/3 of the replies are actually exercises in verbal abuse...

Still, if there are two things that I can't stand, it's intellectual dishonesty and skewed logic.

You must really hate gun control freaks then...

Heck, I would respect him a lot more even if he just came out and said, "yeah, I like handguns because I like to shoot at paper targets and hope one day I can put that training to good use on a criminal. Plus, feeling a gun in my hand gives me a feeling of empowerment that I otherwise wouldn't have."

Everyone who complains is bitching, criticism is a sign of envy, if you fuck a man you're not a fag... Machismo cynism is apparently the pinnacle of cool, congratulations youth of America! Ever seen Gwydion talking about his guns? Then why do you figure his defense of firearms to be a sign of some irrational affection?

Everyone has their vices. It's when you try and justify them with poor arguments that you lose your integrity. Also, it's obvious by other posts he's made and by what other forum members have said that he truly does have an obsession with guns.

Only in topic devoted to firearms. So far you've made what, 20-30 posts, and most of them are gun control chants, I guess you have an obsession to abolish Second Amendment and bury Gwydion, you crazy fuck!

I know for a fact that routine assaults on taxi drivers stopped abruptly in a region in Russia when one driver pulled out a revolver on his assailants, killed two and crippled for life another. And that's all the evidence I need on benefits of legal gun ownership.