An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control? 3042
"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."
Guns (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Another Correction: Guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, it's the blood loss and internal organ damage from catching a bullet (or failing to proplerly catch a bullet) that kill people.
Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be fairly easy to find facts on gun ownership, number of shooting deaths, etc
The problem is in drawing a conclusion from those facts. There is not a single "correct" conclusion that can be drawn, or we wouldn't have the various viewpoints that we have.
Aaron
Good Book (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though. Places like Switzerland ensure that every able-bodied adult as a fully-fledged assault rifle in their closet. Places like Israel have public armories, and won't let schoolchildren on a field trip unless the chaperones are packing.
Both of those places have ridiculously low amounts of gun violence. (Google it.) Obviously, Israel likely has more that Switzerland, but then, they've been shooting at the Palestinians for years.
In another example, England apparently has a decent chunk of gun violence, yet strict gun control laws.
I can't offer you statistics off the top of my head. I won't tell you that people need assault rifles to hunt today's super animals like the flying squirrel, and I won't tell you that hand guns should be restricted.
The only thing I'll tell you is that guns don't cause violence - societies cause violence. If not guns, then swords and knives and sticks and bare hands.
Ask ESR (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforce Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Gun ownership should demand a great deal of responsibility on the part of those owning firearms.
Practically, though, you don't see people being held accountable when their gun is stolen, used for a crime, found by a kid, etc.
I believe the pro-gun ownership lobby has become too extreme defending the right to own assault weapons and neglected the need to insure that gun owners are more responsible.
They need to listen and understand their own rhetoric about "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place? Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation with consequences that are just as dire.
I'm in favor of an empowered citizenry, with the right to own deadly weapons. But I'm insistent that the greater the risk of the weapon (including the highest levels where government officials control nukes, etc.), the greater the responsibility and accountability needs to be.
Cold Hard Statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
And just because I love this joke, here it is:
How does the ACLU count to 10?
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
NRA is an extreme point-of-view? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a member of the NRA and have no immediate intentions of becoming one, but I cannot see how their position can be labeled "extreme". As far as I can tell, they simply want to maintain the status quo and uphold the second amendment. Their position is painted by their opponents as extreme because our culture deems a "moderate" position as being intellectually superior to an "extreme" position. Their opponents have tried all sorts of word gymnastics to diminish the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment, yet the NRA's position has remained consistent and firm.
I remember reading that the majority of crimes were committed with guns obtained illegally (i.e. stolen or bought off of the black market) so I'm unsure what anti-gun advocates intend to accomplish (other than eventually disarming those that abide by the law).
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:2, Insightful)
1) What's a minor.
Some groups consider a child-shooting as long as the person in question is under 19.
2) What's a "shooting death"?
Should a shooting death be counted if the person was protecting themselves? How about someone else? How about a threat they felt was immenent?
And the big unknown in pretty much every study: How many crimes were prevented? This is often the focus of such studies, and is often extrapolated from very iffy figures.
What it comes down to is the 2nd amendment, which, despite with a not-to-be-named-9th-circuit-court might say, actually does protect the right to bear arms. Until the amendment is changed, gun control people have a very large uphill battle.
wrong question, wrong approach (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's fine. You've already done the hard work. You've recognized who the players are and what their biases are. You've found the information, and you've recognized who supplied which information. Now it is your information to read the information, decide which information is presented in a reasonable, rational and credible way, and filter for the agendas that the authors have in presenting the work. (OK, that's hard work too, but you've started the hard work, which is more than some people ever do.)
Looking for the objective information is silly, with all due respect. The many rational people on each side of this will present lots of information which is factual, in the sense that it doesn't include outright lies. But hot-button issues become too polarized for it to be possible to present them objectively. The best you can do is look at both sides fairly.
A Statistical Answer to a Social Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the solution here is to look at whatever you can find with a skeptical eye much like you'd look at any politician and make a decision based on what you find (or don't find). Gun rights/control is just a single notch lower on the pole than, say, abortion, and I think you're probably going to find nothing on a higher level than CDC data [google.com] that isn't interpreted in some way.
Finally, while deaths resulting from guns is certain a quanitity data is collected on, deaths and crimes that did not result due to a gun is far, far more nebulous. How do you quantify something like that?
In closing -- and with all due respect because I'm going to assume you are sincere in your desire to get to the bottom of this -- I think you're looking for a statistical answer to a social question and you're going to wind up just as frustrated as when you began if you don't approach it at least substantially from a social angle. And approaching this socially is a tacit forfeiture of the clean answer you were looking for in numbers. But I do wish you the best of luck. If you publish anything on your findings I'd love to see what you come up with (jason at macross daht com).
Re:We need to change the constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, though, at least get the admentment right if you are trying to make an argument.
Facts (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a wonderful source of gun information, and a far better source than even Snopes for combatting gun misinformation. Additionally, I would recomend Michael Moore's new movie Bowling for Columbine [michaelmoore.com] - if you are an American interested in learning about guns in America, you can learn more about gun advocates in the two minute Terry Nichols interview than you can in a year of attempting to decipher NRA mailings. 'There are real nuts out there!' exclaims Terry. And he is quite right.
Despite the recent California Supreme Court decision, I think every reasonable American knows that the founding fathers designed the second amendment to allow all Americans access to personal firearms. Muzzle loaded, smoothbore, single shot flintlocks. Of course, the idea of giving a person today's concealable automatic ceramic-barreled teflon-round armed killing machines would have been complete anathema even to Patrick Henry, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will get around to upholding a ban on everything but black powder smoothbore, but until then we'll have to tolerate the nutjobs.
Re:Sorry for the Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot's motto is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." While the first part implies topics related to technology and science, the second part is much broader. Gun laws matter to a lot of people, since they pitch two highly held ideals against each other: Freedom and Security.
The reason I think this topic deserves to be discussed on Slashdot is that it has a lot of overlap with the more nerd-specific topic "freedom of the internet". In both cases, a compromise has to be found between security and freedom of the individual (only extremists would argue for total control or total freedom).
Yet another similarity is that in both cases the political decisions are probably made not according to what's the best compromise, but, sadly, according to what's best for business (gun lobby, media companies, etc).
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm, why the Centre for Disease Control?
Doctor: "I'm sorry, but little Billy has got a serious case of cranial bullet-itis. There's nothing I can do."
Re:Look at how it's affected crime in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally disagree. Normatively people don't take a look at the facts, evaluate them objectively, and then draw a variety of different conclusions. They decide what they want their conclusion to be in the beginning and then find facts to support that conclusion.
Look at the NRA. Do you think everyone in the NRA went to the library, carefully and thoughtfully evaluated the statistics, then reluctantly decided to support gun ownership because the facts supported it? No! They decided to support gun ownership because they love guns. Facts, if any, were found afterward to reinforce the position they already had regardless of them.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Somewhere in the middle.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns dont kill people, people kill people.....but, guns sure do help
People who want to kill people will do it whether or not they have a gun. They will find a way. There are easier ways to kill a large number of people (gas, bomb, etc.) and there are easier ways to kill a small number of people (posioning, knife, etc.). The absence of guns will not make it less likely for to kill.
I am pretty sure everyone feels this way (except maybe very liberal gun control groups). However, I personally would rather be ensured that I can carry a gun to protect myself than trust people I don't know to have common sense and morals. Entrusting your life like this is borderline careless.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everyone is out to kill. What I am saying is that I think people should be permitted to defend themselves in case one of these derranged people decide they want to kill someone.
This is one reason. The other reason is for protection. Victims of a violent crime are twice as likey to be injured if they are unarmed. Despite what gun control grous tell you, cooperating is not the best way to ensure your safety.
neurostarSafety. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety...
Is your neighbourhood really that dangerous? How many times have you felt obligated to brandish your weapon to protect your family? What are you so afraid of? That someone else with a gun will randomly try to kill your loved ones? Or do you love your property so much that you would be willing to kill for it, rather than file an insurance claim? These are honest questions because I really don't understand your mentality.
Given your past need to fend off attackers with your gun, what is the greater probability: that at some point in the future you will successfully save the lives of your loved ones with your gun, or that someone you love will be killed with it while they're goofing around?
Re:Oh boy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We need to change the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
How bout some facts to back up your thoughts?
Removing guns from lawful, responsible people does nothing to keep them out of the hands of actual criminals. By definition, being criminals, they will not surrender the firearms in their posession. So they they have them, and no one else does.
Not a good concept for self protection. And the police being what they are, they cannot be everywhere at once.
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
Would you, as a presumably anti-gun person, be willing to put a sign in your front yard "This house is gun free!" ?
If not, you are reaping the benefits of allowing guns in the hands of lawful citizens. The crimnals do not know which household may or may not have a gun inside, and so may be less inclined to break in. You may not own one, but no one knows that but you.
Guns vs. Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Daughter "six thousand people were killed with hand guns in the United States last year!"
Archie Bunker "would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good Book (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the concept of the militia is to form a military group out of your citizens. Therefore, you need a citizenry that owns and shoots guns regularly, so when you *do* need to form a militia, they are ready to fight. In fact, in a militia, the men were assumed to bring their own weapons.
Also, it does not refer to the National Guard since that was formed by an act of Congress 140 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Re:Amen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is a short list of things people kill other people with that should also be banned: baseball bats hockey sticks cars knives chemicals cigarettes sexually transmitted diseases piano wire ice picks Please, for the love of God, register your knives and take a knife safety course!!! THEY ARE SHARP AND DANGEROUS!
Michael Moore got it wrong with Canada. (Score:5, Insightful)
One important point that Michael Moore missed, is that while Canadians to have a higher gun ownership per capita then the US, they are almost exclusively long guns - rifles and shotguns used almost exclusively for hunting and protection from animals.
It's extremely dificult to legally get a handgun in Canada. It's been like that the last 30 years, at least. Controls on handguns and assault weapons in Canada has a long history.
Where I agree with Moore, is that Americans carry guns out of fear of people, where Canadians mostly use guns as tools against animals.
The idea that people must carry guns to protect themselves from other people is largely unique to the US, and I think goes to the high rate of gun violence here.
_Am
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:3, Insightful)
If only the government has guns, then the people are pretty much out of luck.
Which is why the 2nd amendment exists. So the people (meaning individuals, not state-run militias) can rise up (after exhausting all legal means) and take control again.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh...a militia is a body of citizens organized for military service. A citizen is an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. These are dictionary definitions, not my own.
So, a militia is a group of *private citizens* organized for military action, usually in defense of their township or state, and armed not through federal funds or subsidies, but through their own means.
Tell me again how the second amendment doesn't guarantee private citizens the right to bear arms?
Re:Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
People laugh, or mod this as flamebait, but there's a strange, twisted truth to this. The per-capita homicide rate (all numbers from the FBI uniform crime rate analyses of 1997) for the US is something like 8 per 10,000, roughly 5 of which are caused by firearms. If we go to some strange, fantasy-land where no firearms exist, and further assume that murders committed with firearms would not have been committed without the firearm (laughable in cases) and furthermore assume that firearms prevented no murders (e.g., by scaring away criminals,) we can take away five of those eight homicides per 10,000, leaving the U.S. with a per capita homicide rate (non-firearm) of roughly 3 per 10,000. Not bad, right?
The United Kingdom has a per capita homicide rate of ~1.5 per 10,000, firearms included.
So even without our guns, we Americans are twice as homicidal as other industrialized, modern countries? Just my $0.02 (internet-advice value adjusted to $0.00
Opinions (Score:4, Insightful)
actually know how to use, maintain, carry, and most importantly...when and how to present the weapon when it gets intense.
Contrary to popular belief guns are no more or less dangerous than anything else you can find in a home as long as they are *properly* stored. A child running around with the turkey carving knife he pulled out of the knife rack on the counter has as much damage potential as an unsecured gun.
Also there's the issue of guns and crime. Sure we've all heard the expression "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns" till we're sick of it, but it *is* a true saying nonetheless. We outlaw drugs and they're all over the place. We outlawed Booze once...that worked well didn't it? You can restrict and outlaw and ban all you want, but as long as there are criminals who will pay for the guns, other criminals will figure out how to get guns in from other sources.
Guns used in crime. This is a tricky one as the facts differ from person to person. There is evidence that the "Wild West" wasn't as wild as people claim. This makes sense to me as only a fool would start something in a saloon where everyone including the showgirls are packing some sort of hand cannon. Also there are the anecdotes of the idiots who have tried to commit armed robery of gunstores (some with police officers picking up their sidarms) and the results of such encounter.
Personaly I'd LOVE (not that I'm holding me breath) to see a law that requires everyone over 18 with no police record to start learning the proper useages of a handgun and to be expected to actually openly carry at the age of 21. It's a little harder to rape a woman who is packing heat and is trained in it's proper use. It's even harder to knock over a convience store when the clerk, the manager, the guy behind the deli counter and the guy picking up a pint of ice cream for the missus is armed.
But that's just MY dream and my opinions
Re:Barely a Fact. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although technically ture your argument is heavily flawed. If someone cannot get access to a gun and they choose a knife or a sword then their maximum scope of damage is severely reduced.
Assuming I have a 9 bullet handgun I can kill 9 people from a reasonable distance before anyone can do much about it.
Switch to a knife I can probably get 1 or 2 before everyone figures out what I'm doing and eith runs away or overwhelms me
Switch to fists I'll be lucky to kill 1 person unless they are alone and killing 2 people is almost completly out of the question.
The idea that guns have nothing to do with violence is absurd, with a gun I can kill anyone very quickly, as my choice of weapons is reduced so is my ability to unleash quick and deadly force and thus I can kill less and less.
Please dont claim guns are completly irrelevant in how violent a society is as it is an insult to the intelligence of the people around you.
--
nich
Re:Viewpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather be pronounced rude than dead :) Seriously, not everyone is worthy of trust. It's silly to think that we should all just trust everyone and therefore have no need to defend ourselves. It's quite obvious that we need to defend ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn't have jails or police. But since the police aren't required to defend us, and aren't capable of defending us well enough even if they were required to, it falls upon us to defend ourselves. A gun is the most effective tool for that purpose.
Oops! (Score:2, Insightful)
The Correlation vs. Causality flaw is a classic trap, of which I will give one example:
"Men who use electric razors are four times as likely to develop facial melanoma."
So electric razors cause cancer? Well, no.
Electric razors are used in greater numbers by men in urban environments who have higher overall cancer rates in every category, because they are exposed to more carcinogens. But appropriately spun, the correlation sounds downright dreadful.
Instead of flawed studies like the one linked in the parent, I recommend fact sites such as GunCite [guncite.com].
Re:Oh boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the Constitution. To restrict freedoms granted by the Constitution is to take the first step down a slippery slope to dictatorship.
Or not.
Slashdotters are generally pretty big on the First Amendment if they are American, or on their respective nations' constitutional or legislated guarantees of free speech otherwise. You still can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You're not allowed to put up a website encouraging people to kill doctors, even ones who perform abortions.
When an individual is arrested for a crime, he or she is immediately deprived of any number of rights, despite being presumed innocent. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Yet people (nominally presumed innocent until proven otherwise) are regularly held without bail before trial. You know what? In some cases, it's not a bad thing.
Rights granted under the Constitution and Amendments must be balanced against one another. As written, the First Amendment is absolute. "Congress shall make no law..." Nevertheless, limitations to its application have been considered and imposed by government and upheld by the courts.
As for the Second Amendment--are you part of a 'well regulated militia'? The world was a very different place in 1791--perhaps the time for the Second Amendment is not past, but surely our interpretation of it should have matured beyond "Everyone should have a right to guns as they see fit."
Re:Fact. (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact is that if I have a handgun and I don't like someone standing 20 feet away, all I have to do is nudge a little trigger to end his life. I don't have to be close enough to really apprehend what I've done, and the violent death that I've caused was brought about merely by changing my grip on the gun.
If I have a knife or a sword or my hands and I don't like the person 20 feet away, I have to close the distance and physically jam, say, the knife into his chest, probably repeatedly, in order to kill him. This is non-trivial, gory, takes a lot of effort, and removes the comfortable separation between causing death and making someone dead tha is afforded by an accurate gun.
This isn't to say that societies don't affect peoples level of violence and it's not meant as an argument for gun control. I just wanted to point out that the "barrier to entry" is significantly lower when you've got a pistol. Which is to say, if you've got just a knife or your hands you've _really_ got to want to hurt someone to go through with deadly force. With a gun you can be further away and only have to pull a little trigger. I don't have data on this so maybe i should just shut up, but it seems to me pretty obvious that a substantial number of homicides wouldn't have happened if the assailant had been armed with a knife and the act of killing someone necessarily had a deeply visceral requirement to actually pull it off.
What relationship? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for this is exceedingly simple: only persons commit crimes, and the tool of choice for the commision of any particular crime is irrelevant. After all, some of the most gruesome crimes commited in the US have not involved firearms. For example, Ted Bundy seemed to prefer knives. Shepard was not killed with a pistol - he was beaten and left to die. And of course, we have had people dragged to death by trucks.
One could actually make a very good argument that even banning, confiscating, and destroying all firearms in the country would not make one immune to crime. Because, as I have pointed out, you can still be beaten (with fists, baseball bats), stabbed (kitchen knives, shanks), burned(hairspay and lighter), blown up (bathtub plastique - see the AC),etc.
In fact, in following the gun control debate (and many other debates), I am often reminded of George Carlin's rant about living in a world made entirely of Nerf. It is, after all, the only way to be assured of safety.
It's a culture thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, if you're up against a hardened criminal with a big gun, do you really think your little pistol is going to scare him off? Of course not. This guy has been around too much. He might well have shot at people before. He doesn't really care too much about his rotten, stinking life anyway. He has little to loose. You have never shot at anybody before. You have no clue as to how you would react. And you're probably not good at it anyway.
you can't deter someone if that someone thinks he is better than you and/or have less to loose
Well, that sniper, well you guys taught him all he needed to know about killing people, and you taught him that it was actually an OK thing to do with your enemies. Then, it is too late to tell him that "you're not supposed to shoot at others than we tell you to". It just isn't possible. The guys who want guns the most is the last people on earth you should give it to.
But, to end these ramblings. I don't think it is about guns per se, it is about a culture that says that shooting at people is a legitimate way to use a gun. That's where it goes wrong. I think you'd find that shooting crimes would go down if you got rid of that attitude. Guns are for gathering food. Not self-defence. No armed revolution. But that's awfully hard to do.
But then, this was an opinion, not what you were asking for.
Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the people are the (unorganized) militia, I'd say that both of you missed the point. (The organized militia [google.com] is everybody who's in the National Guard. The unorganized militia [city-net.com] is everyone else; this was last confirmed in 1939 in United States v. Miller [guncite.com].)
Race and economics (Score:3, Insightful)
I should also point out that while there might be more guns per cap in Canada, the vast majority are hunting rifles that require permits. Unlike Americans, we can't just walk in to the local Guns'R'Us and buy a handgun.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:2, Insightful)
I carry a gun every day, in fact. It's MY responsibility for my and my family's safety, not the police deparment who will show up 20 minutes late to clean up the mess.
This post reflects that attitude, (or fear of that attitude, which is not unfounded) by stating that he always carries a gun. I don't think that solves the problem. I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else.
Personally I believe that media and society feed off of one another to create this attitude. Society wants more violence, TV gives it to them, thus society in turn gets bored and wants even more. Now I'm not saying that things like Columbine were caused directly by violence in media, but I think it contributes to the overall attitude of the nation.
Finally I wish that the government would let up on this whole terrorism thing and start doing something to stop the domestic terrorism of violent crime. And I don't mean to put more police on the street, I mean things like education, and drug rehab, etc... anything to get at the root of the problem.
Gun Licenses as hard as Drivers Licenses (Score:4, Insightful)
How about this: A gun license should be as hard to get as a driver's license.
This would mean a written exam on safty, a practical exam on basic marksmanship, maintanience, and safety.
Gun inspections like car inspections would probably be too difficult for existing guns. But at least an inspection for new firearms, to ensure they're being sold with triggerlocks and the like. I can understand why some people wouldn't want a triggerlock on (I think they're stupid, since they're much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, but that's a compelling fantasy for many). But I think every gun should have one, so that it has to be a proactive choice to not use one.
I'm sure the NRA would frantically hate this idea, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing that people who bought guns legally at least demonstrated that they could pick "no" on a multiple choice test asking "is it okay to leave a loaded gun in the bedside table."
Re:Oh boy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't assume that every conflict against a poorly armed population will go over like Desert Storm, Kosovo, or Afghanistan.
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the difference? Both were killed by guns.
One due to improper storage of a firearm, one by improper use of a firearm. Both had the same results - someone under the age of consent died due to a firearm.
In this case, only one could be attributed to 'gun violence', but here in Canada, there are laws regarding gun storage. It would have prevented (does!) the death of the 10 year old's sister. Would not this data be a better case not for gun control, but laws regarding ownership of firearms?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
I freely admit that the questioner's plea for "facts" doesn't carry much weight with me, nor do hypothetical arguments buttressed with hypothetical (make that 'made up') numbers about guns preventing crimes, or by cute and arrogant throw-away word play. Like all important issues, gun control is an emotional issue that will be resolved by politics, belief, and conviction, not by a resort to "facts'.
That fact is people die every day at the hands of people with guns that are only available because
Stone Age groups like the NRA have the will nad the money to distort the political process. Slashdotters who have only recently discovered the evils of cash, special interest groups and lobbying via the DMCA and the RIAA really ought to take a look at what's been happening with the NRA for decades.
Re:Safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know as one who carries daily- I don't ever feel a need to brandish a weapon. The day I draw it will be to shoot - to kill. It is not a macho thing- it is a rational, self defense thing. What brandishing a gun gets you is jail time.
Yes- your neighborhood is that dangerous.
3 people died in my city last night. They were killed by some guy on a street corner shooting at cars that drove by. One was a 20 year old woman- 2 months pregnant. Her and the baby died.
I wouldn't kill someone to protect my property but I would do it to protect my wife - my children - or for that matter you. If I am driving down the street and see someone that is presenting the threat of death to another- I will step in.
Our constitutional rights and the responsibilities of freedom extend beyond selfish needs. They extend to what an individual can do to maintain the body politic. If more able bodied/minded citizens would stop shirking their responsibility to make this world a safe place- it would be a much safer place.
We could go on all day I guess. I doubt I'll change your mind but the folks who desire to own and use guns are not as simple minded as you imply.
.
Re:Fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
People here are always bringing up Switzerland as an example in these arguments, but nobody here would be willing to accept the accountability that the Swiss government demands from its gun users. Could you imagine the uproar if every bullet in America had to be registered with the government?
IIRC, Switzerland has a higher than normal gun suicide rate, because every suicidal person has a handy tool, and these people are among the few that wouldn't care if their illicit ammo use is discovered.
Re:News for Geeks? Stuff that Matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, look at Canada and Australia. We're still bastard colonies of Great Britain, aren't we ? Not everybody has to go through a bloody battle to become independent.
Clinging to such a dated and nowadays absurd idea that guns are still essential because they were essential in some long-irrelevant war, and, furthermore, that they are a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, further promotes unneccessary and uncontrolled use of guns.
I have a friend who applied for a firearms license here in Ontario. He had to go through a rigorous psychological examination at least, not to mention the background check. However, apart from the procedures, the attitude that owning a firearm is a privilege (like driving) rather than a right, probably contributes significantly to keeping Canada (not to mention Australia, Germany, France, South Africa, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland,
Is there any legislation in the States that would prohibit people from using guns if they prove negligent in their care or irresponsible in their use (before even killing or wounding another) ?
You can lose your Driver's License if you are caught driving drunk, before you hit anyone or do any damage. You cannot lose your firearms license for keeping guns and ammo in the same closet or accidentally shooting a window pane to smithereens because, well, there is no such thing as a firearms license !
Re:NRA is an extreme point-of-view? (Score:2, Insightful)
They enjoy rubbing salt in the wounds of communities that have been the victims of truly horrible gun violence. And are completely focused on one goal - completely unfettered access to guns for everyone - no matter their situation or background.
The NRA also has a history of assaulting anything that could make murders with guns easier to solve.
A perfect example of this is bullet fingerprinting. Bullet fingerprinting does absolutly ZERO damage to a person's ability to use a gun as they choose. BUT, if they murder someone, it makes it easy to trace. there is NO solid reason for the NRA to be against this, except that they support strong gun rights for not just citizens, hunters and for protection...but they effectivly support strong gun rights for criminals, doing their best to make it difficult for people to be charged with gun crimes - or for a gun to be used as evidence of another crime. And, the only argument they can broke agaisnt this - is that criminals willjust use unfingerprinted bullets....to which I say BULLSHIT - not all crimes are pre-meditated, and not all criminals are smart. Some will use the bullets, and those will be easier to prosecute - all at no cost to the lawful gun user.
the NRA in my mind is run by a man (Charleton Heston) who has had his mental capacity COMPLETLY subsumed by the Meme of unfettered gun access.
IMHO he's not a man anymore - just a replication device for the meme...
Guncite is not objective (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm on the fence with regards to gun control, but I shun statistical analysis like the plague. Especially the analysis from Guncite, which is loaded with partial interpretations, spin, and all the rest of it. Don't consider it anything approaching an objective source.
For instance, one particular graph [guncite.com] on the site contrasts the increasing number of guns in the public's hands with gun-homocide rates. Because the homocide rates don't rise with the number of guns in society, the conclusion is that gun "supply" has nothing to do with homocide rates*.
I've thought of drawing a similar example in which I would graph kids' intake of milk on one axis and their rate of growth on the other. My conclusion? As you increase the amount of milk the kids drink to amounts like 10 gallons a day, you don't see a corresponding increase in the kids' rate of growth. Therefore, I've demonstrated that calcium intake has no effect on growth rates in kids. I'll call it the "Calcium Supply Myth".
Of course that's a nonsensical conclusion-- I've just shown that if you're already providing enough calcium, adding excess doesn't necessarily have give you eight-foot tall kids. But if kids weren't getting enough calcium, would their growth rates slow down? Ditto for guns. Once there are enough guns in society to thorougly satisfy criminals' demands for weaponry, it doesn't matter so much how many more you add. Certainly it demonstrates that adding more guns to our already phenomenal supply doesn't seem to "turn people into murderers." But that's about all I can draw from that graph.
What would happen if you actually reduced the number of guns in public hands to the point where criminals were going without? I don't know, and clearly neither does GunCite. Personally, I'm increasingly of the opinion that our liberal attitude towards gun ownership, combined with lack of regulation and training, does indeed result in deaths. That doesn't necessarily mean I want guns outlawed, however; there are good constitutional and moral arguments for gun ownership. But the "we can have it all" argument that our armed society comes without a price is just wishful thinking.
* Incidentally, there are other problems with this graph: it doesn't say how the guns are distributed-- if one person buys a hundred guns, it's a little different from a hundred people each buying one gun. It also doesn't say how many guns are dropping out of supply, etc, and I'm not clear if it includes military/police purchases.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting. Prohibition taught me that the Government CAN take away my rights. They did then. Many peoples' rights were taken away during McCarthyism. And many peoples' rights are being taken away right now. It's all a case of what is politically popular and unopposable at the time.
If you argue for example that terrorist detainees should get a fair trial, you will be laughed down, even though that is what is 'right' under the Constitution, for example.
Think about your reaction to the above point. Why do you feel the way you do?
Anthropology and violence (Score:5, Insightful)
In Japan, to contrast, the motives that might drive an American to murder tend to lead to sepuku. Citizens of nations, such as Canada, closer to British and continental ideas of orderly society and acceptable behaviour would be embarrased to express American attitudes or tolerate the relative intemperance we consider an individual's right.
Violence is begaviour. Weapons are not of themselves more than tools that can be used or not to expedite behaviour. A good example of this is the events surrounding 9/11. Most people do not expect to be violent or to require weapons. As law abiding citizens, they adhere to the codes the government tells them "are for your own protection." Consequently, there few "weapons" among the passengers that could be diredcted to defeating the terrorists. Criminals and terrorists, however, do indeed expect to be violent and they have no reason to eschew carrying or improvising weapons of any form, regardless of law. Consequently box cutters, which are pretty indifferent weapons, were employed with almost complete success to overcome and demoralize the crews and most passengers on the four airliners.
Growing dependence upon authority by citizenry is probably the ultimate reason that such operations can be successful. The thorough manner in which the "shoe bomber" was suppressed and delivered trussed in twenty odd belts is a solid indication that a "militia" in the constitutional sense is probably vastly more efficient at public protection than the police could ever be.
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
And honestly, the NRA is a paper tiger - a good deal of "freedom-oriented" firearms owners are convinced that the NRA doesn't do enough for gun owners that new firearms-rights groups (e.g., GOA, JPFO, etc.) are getting new members like gangbusters (pun not really intended.:)
Like I said: there's more to violence in America than just guns and gun control. These are merely sound-bite friendly, easily polarized topical issues that obfuscate the real problem of violence in America
Re:Delusional (Score:3, Insightful)
What's interesting about ask slashdot is not an unbiased analysis. What's interesting is reading other peoples opinions, so you can form your own.
Re:Amen (Score:2, Insightful)
They're tools (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the best advice I've ever received in terms of gun safety.
They've been demonized, but guns are really nothing more than really crude drills.
Sure, you can use a drill for good and bad. It's can make furniture, and it can kill aunt Martha, but there's no real issue of wether or not we should illegalize drills.
Re: Canada, gun ownership, culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Writing as a Canadian, I'm a little concerned about your characterization of my country as monolithic. The United States, from what I'm told, is all about assimilation--a melting pot. The philosophy in Canada leans more towards a multicultural mosaic. Yes, small communities in Canada are often WASP bubbles, just like they are in the States. Urban centres have active ethnic communities, and are better for it.
I'm afraid that the disparity in the level of gun violence is not due to racial friction as you would seem to imply. Rather, it is the different attitude in Canada towards guns. For better or worse, most Canadian guns are long guns used primarily for hunting and sport shooting. Handguns are much less popular, and much less common--and also involve much more paperwork to own. There is a social stigma associated with owning a handgun up here that seems totally absent in the States.
Talk to my sister in law, who was attacked and beaten by her boyfriend, and you might get a different point of view.
This might sound cruel, but are you reading what you're writing? If there was a gun in the house, she'd probably be dead right now.
Re:Guns just make it easier (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do you, and so many others, refer to Hussein by his first name as "Saddam," like he's your bud or something? What's up with that?
Those links show precisely the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Even adjusting for population differences, that would give the US many, many times the rate of gun violence that the UK enjoys.
Re:NRA is an extreme point-of-view? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I wonder why the framers of the Constitution would have used the phrase "the people" to refer to individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but not in the 2nd.
From your argument, so long as things have changed, we can ignore our Bill of Rights. That's a very dangerous road to go down.
Re:Race and economics (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know which Americans you're talking about, but I live in Acton Massachusets, USA, and I cannot legally obtain a handgun. Period. Ever. You need a handgun permit to posess a handgun in my town, and they are handed out at the discression of the chief of police. He won't sign your permit unless you're a personal friend or a friend of one. I just moved here, and I don't know anybody in town, so I'm out. No hand gun for me. Of course I can illegaly obtain one without too much effort, which is why I'm anti-gun-control. Gun control means you can't legally obtain a gun, but you can illegaly obtain a gun. That means the guy robbing my house can have a gun (since he's willing to break the law), but I can't (since I am unwilling to break the law).
Now, I can go down to K-mart and pick up a rifle without a problem, but that's another story...
Basis for Gun Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
"Look at the NRA. Do you think everyone in the NRA went to the library, carefully and thoughtfully evaluated the statistics, then reluctantly decided to support gun ownership because the facts supported it? No!"
Thank god you spoke up. I couldn't find the place where they keep the statistics on how many violent crimes are averted because of a gun. Where do they keep this in your library? Also, where does the factbook on whether or not we'd still be a democracy without them fit into the Dewey system?
"They decided to support gun ownership because they love guns. Facts, if any, were found afterward to reinforce the position they already had regardless of them."
I think dismissive arguments like this are part of the problem. The NRA thinks that liberals are idiots and would like nothing more than give criminals yet another leg up (but they really do, honestly think that the world is better off with less guns). The liberals think that the NRA is a bunch of violent people who would like nothing better than to shoot another human being (when they really do, honestly believe that the lynchpin of freedom is an armed populace).
Take whatever side you'd like but quit demeaning the other end of the spectrum. Those who commit the crime of disagreeing with you are neither de facto idiots nor liars and everyone suffers when you paint them as one.
Re:Guns (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, I will agree with you.
As was stated in the intro above, Canadians have more guns per capita than Americans, yet they engage in drastically fewer violent crimes with these guns.
Therefore, it cannot be the guns themselves that create crime or cause death.
The answer lies in the decision making abilities and thought patterns of every American, many of which are obviously compromised or malfunctioning.
Why America has this particular malady I cannot say with certainty.
Whatever it actually IS, it is not videogames, it is not violence on TV, it is NOT because there is no prayer in schools, and it is not because "guns are BAD." (If I left out any of the other lame-ass excuses people put forth to advance their personal moral crusades, I apologise.)
I think it may be due to an inversion of morality ie. exaggeration of self importance, emphasis on and importance of property rather than property RIGHTS (sanctity of property), acceptability and glorification of criminality, denial of the sanctity of life (please do not bring up abortion or capital punishment as inducing factors here or I will have to kill you...Hehe), etc. More importantly, I see the problem as a failure of the juducial system to provide adequate examples for deterence. Corporal punnishemnt for lower offenses might help. (Smack'em if they can't obey the law.) Capital punishment more liberally applied might help too. (Whack'em if they can't keep from killin' people.)
It could be a systemic problem with recognition of authority and it's importance. It could be a mass entitlement complex that crumbles in the face of reality and leaves the individual morally destitute and seeking revenge for their unsatisfied ego. It could be mass quantities of hallucinogenic vapors dumped on the metropolitan cities by the US government...(hey, it sounded palusible on x-Files last night!)
Whatever they are, the underlying reasons do not change the fact that each person in the US who picks up a weapon and kills someone with it does so from their own motivation, with foreknowledge that it is wrong, and almost universally with foreknowledge of possible consequences. Therefore, they should be held responsible for their actions and made an example of to deter future crime. The travesty is that many times, this does not happen.
As to the article writer: Do not rely on the "studies" of others to influence you.
Develop your own ideas about why you should or should not continue to own and responsibly enjoy your firearms. You could even tell others about why you believe what you believe(after you figure it out). However, if you can't figure it out yourself, maybe you should dispose of your weapons before you become a statistic or part of someone's study.
Karma: Excellent (mostly due to refraining from killing all the bastards you meet who are begging for it)
Spontaneous Gun Violence (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately my in-depth 30-second google searching couldn't turn up any survey/study on this... but if anyone should find it later (including myself) maybe they'll post it in reply.
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
For what it's worth, if I have a steady rest (as little as a solid bit of ground to lay on, or as fancy as a pair of crossed sticks) I can put 5 shots into a 2 inch circle at 100 yards with all but 1 of my rifles. (The exception is a replica BAR, it looks authentic, and is authentic in it's poor performance, minus the full-auto part of course.)
Hell, I even have 2 handguns that I can put 5 (or 6) rounds into a 4 inch circle at 100 yards..and one of those is actualy good for the same 2 inch circle as my rifles.
I think I've got bullet control well in hand.
Guess what! None of my firearms has ever caused bodily harm to any other person. I think MrDog is right! Bullet control is 100% mandatory for the safe ownership and operation of a firearm.
Re:Good Book (Score:1, Insightful)
proved" that more guns means more crime, and another group of researchers used econometrics to "prove" that it made no difference.
Once you get past the labyrinth of silly worthless statistics, 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. The author uses econometrics to 'adjust' away silly things like say, population differences, economic relationships with crime, the large epidemic of specifically crack-related drug killings, etc. Econometrics are used to prove things like abortion causes crime and poverty, etc. etc.
Re:Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's not. Go back and read the question.
The submitter complained about the disappointing level of discourse surrounding this subject. He stated, correctly, that both sides spew nothing more than obviously-skewed rhetoric. He came to Slashdot looking for objective facts, and intelligent discourse. (Imagine that...)
To respond with a quip -- and that's EXACTLY what blackmonday posted -- misses the point. If you believe that gun deaths are far more prevalent in the United States than in Canada, then post some data backing that up. Maybe it's an accurate statement. I don't know. But THAT was exactly the point: The submitter doesn't know, either, and he came to Slashdot looking for those answers.
Blackmonday began what could have been an intelligent, interesting thread with a foolish, bite-sized quip -- EXACTLY the type of thing the submitter had complained about. It's unfortunate that people like yourself, who obviously also missed the point, have modded his quip back up to a 5. And reading the rest of the thread, it's unfortunate to see that blackmonday's post is about par for the course. Nothing new for Slashdot, of course...but disappointing, nonetheless.
crib
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason we even have partial protection under the 2nd amendment is because of groups like the NRA, which is similar to the EFF. Groups like the RIAA, HCI are out to take away and control us.
Re:Viewpoints (Score:3, Insightful)
HOWEVER! It's a great shame America went down that route in the first place. Had the first people over there taken the "owning a gun is rude" (or perhaps we could call it "civilised") attitide, you wouldn't all be in the deep shit you're in now when it comes to violence and firearm deaths.
So essentially, I don't think there's anything to be done. If Columbine and all the others haven't shocked the nation into wanting more gun control (OK, many people *did* start campaigning, but not enough it seems...), then you guys haven't got a prayer.
BTW, Bowling for Columbine presented the very interesting theory that the reason Americans are so gun-happy is that they're all shit-scared of, well, no-one quite knows (it might be, *gasp*, Black People), but they're really, really frightened of it. I suppose that explains why the US government always needs a scapegoat somewhere in the world... Communism, the Axis of Evil, etc. Just to make sure Americans don't feel stupid feeling frightened.
But what do I know? I'm just a dumb Brit who, like just about everyone I know, has never actually seen a gun in real life (except in a museum).
Re:News for Geeks? Stuff that Matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to flame you, but I do have some questions.
First, protection from what?
Second, why by the door? If the Deadly Home Invaders of Death kick the door down and barge in, they've cut you off from your protection before you've even figured out what's going on. If they knock first, wouldn't a paperweight, or a stun grenade, or a taser, or a cattle prod, or whatever be just as handy--and much less lethal?
Finally, have you ever opened the door to a situation that could be best resolved by killing someone? Do you have any reason to expect that such a situation may come knocking?
I dunno, maybe shooting people dead really is the best solution for the problems that plague your neighborhood... if so, I humbly withdraw my questions.
Bonus: I don't think the point of the Second Amendment was to make law enforcement officials fear for their lives when serving a warrant. If that's your idea of a situation that could best be resolved by killing someone, remind me never to drop by unannounced. It seems your paperweight has put you in the mood for murder.
Rights, Smights (Score:1, Insightful)
That's obviously not practical because even if you have the right and you can't give it up it can be oppressed by public consent. If we think it's okay for Washington to determine when we enforce the Bill of Rights and for which groups then we're on the right path but if we really believe in the founding principals of this nation it's time to enforce all of our guaranteed rights for all peoples uniformly reguardless of if we agree with the people the rights are being enforced for.
Just like Nazis should be able to march in public places due to the first ammendment protection people who use guns for defense and or sport shouldn't be opressed by those who disagree with them.
The biggest problem in this country is a lack of the Rule of Law. We need to enforce laws blindly and evenly we need to send politicians and CEOs to jail when they do something wrong and we need to not look at skin color, religion, or anything else other than the facts of the case. Until this happens we won't have full fledged rights being enforced for anyone, no matter what their station in life is. I believe that all 10 ammendments in the bill of rights and most of the others after it were excellent (#10 is a bit shifty but you had politicians back then, too, and the concept they're trying to enforce is good but the ammendment is a bit too much of a power grab) ideas. Now we just need to make them a reality.
The second biggest problem is we have a culture where no one is held accountable for their actions. Don't get me wrong many of the things we blame for are failings are legit but if you believe that humans have freewill they are factors not causes and it's time we see that. A man may have predilictions for many things but it's still his choice each time he follows them.
Just so you know my biases...I am a single white (German, Scottish, English, et. al. crossbreed) American male. I am a protestant Christian and I make between $70K and $100K anually so I'm pretty much upper-middle class. I own a single
Re:NRA is an extreme point-of-view? (Score:4, Insightful)
As one gunmaker says in its ads, "in a world of compromise, some don't." Would you compromise your free-speech rights (say, the ability to write whatever software you want) in order to improve some group's security (such as the Media [riaa.org] Mafia [mpaa.org])? I didn't think so.
That was a factor (and an important one), but there's also the consideration that so-called "ballistic fingerprinting" is nearly completely useless for tracking a gun from its manufacture to its possible use in a crime. Ordinary wear and tear will change the breech and barrel over time...and if a criminal wanted to accelerate the process somewhat, a few minutes with a Swiss file would make even more drastic changes.
That sword cuts both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like guns too, and don't feel that they should all be taken away, but your argument that not everyone is worthy of trust is one that can be used in both directions.
If everyone could be trusted, then everyone could have guns, and we wouldn't have any problems. The fact that not everyone can be trusted leads to the question, why should I trust you to own a gun? Like I said, I'm not really anti-gun, just looking at both sides. Captain_Frisk out.
Re:Ask ESR (Score:3, Insightful)
You've hit upon the most important tenet of the libertarian philosophy, which is to ignore or deny the existence of externalities of our own choices.
A libertarian might advocate eliminating car safety laws, because a person should be able to choose an unsafe car if they really want to. Of course, the person with the unsafe car isn't just endangeriing themselves, they're endangering and comprimising the freedom of everyone else on the road. Libertarians choose to leave that out of the equation.
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree with the fingerprint identification though. Sharing guns with people at ranges is fun. I own a FAL and most people haven't shot one, so I'll hand it out to people at ranges. I haven't seen anyone I wouldn't trust enough to hand them a gun at a range. Which is odd, because I don't readily trust most peole. I guess when everyone around you is holding a gun, people aren't likely to do anything.
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
And like most over-simplifications, its rife with holes. If I'm out to kill someone do you really think that a lack of a firearm is going to stop me? I'm a pretty big guy, I could probably kill people pretty eaisly without a weapon of any sort. Of, if I want to be quicker about it, a knife is pretty easy to get and use. (Happen to have a nice 8" knife at home in a drawer. Of course, its used to kill celery more often than people, but it wouldn't be hard to use it for such.)
I agree, guns do make killing eaiser, that was kind of the point of guns. Or any weapon for that matter. The question becomes, at what point does a weapon make killing easy to the point where the average citizen shouldn't have one. And that is more just a matter of opinion.
For example, I don't think I'd have to argue too hard to convince people that owing a nuclear device is not something that should be allowed for the average citizen. Most people are just not responsible enough. (I question if even governments are responsible enough, but that is an entirely different topic.)
Sadly, like most social problems, we lack a good control group to run tests against. Do more firearm related deaths happen in the US than in other parts of the world, probably. Does this mean that guns are the problem? No, to assume that is to ignore so many factors. To begin with, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, even without taking firearm deaths into account the US still has a higher homocide rate than other countries. That would seem to indicate that there is an underlying problem in the US, which makes violence more common. The problem isn't directly guns, its the people pulling the triggers. And the commonality of violence in the US. Also, there is another problem with the get rid of guns ides. Assuming for a moment that we did overturn the second amendment, how do you plan to get people to turn them in, without huge outbreaks of violence? Do you really think all of the little gang members are just going to hand in thier guns to the local police? Who is it that is going to be disarmed by this sort of thing? I'll give you a clue, it isn't the people that use guns to commit crimes.
Sorry to say, but what you propose is just an oversimplification of a problem. Its questionable, at best, if the homocide rate will drop by outlawing guns. And the logistics of disarming the populous are outragous, do you really want to go through another civil war?
Box-cutters? (Score:5, Insightful)
--grendel drago
Re:Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Just want to nitpick a bit; this is a rather simplified trivial toy analogy, most often used by gun liberals (NRA and others). The perception is apparently based on the system swiss army uses for having army reserve (much of adult male population) store their personal firearms (assault rifle) in non-distributed fashion, ie. usually at home. Other than that Switzerland's gun laws are not particularly lax, esp. compared to USA.
Similar system is used in Israel, as well, a well-known peaceful non-homicidal nation (point is not to badmouth Israel but to contrast the simplistic example of Switzerland).
The other extreme often used is Jamaica, where apparently gun laws are pretty strict but homicide rates high.
Still, I do agree with most of what you write. However, separating "gun control" issues from cultural ones is difficult as they are fairly closely related. I would actually claim that "wild west" culture ("ain't nobody can protect you but you 'n ya smith'n wesson") is what causes big chunk of problems. That is, the idea that people should protect themselves by firearms is a very underrated culprit.
Re:Trust (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. First of all, it's impossible to disarm everyone. Hell, with some tools and metalworking knowledge you can make a gun in your garage. Not a very good one, but then it doesn't need to be if nobody else has one. Not to mention the fact that they get smuggled into the country anyway. We've already demonstrated that we can't stop things from being brought into the country (witness the drug war), even in massive quantities. What makes you think we could prevent guns from coming in?
Second, if we don't have guns, then we have criminals that will work out and learn to fight better. They'll come in with baseball bats and knives instead. They can still kill you without hardly breaking a sweat, and you have no effective way of fighting back. At least if you both have guns, you're on fairly equal ground. Criminals faced with someone who has a gun will usually run rather than fight. It simply isn't worth the risk to them.
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:1, Insightful)
Fighting Culture (Score:2, Insightful)
Being in the U.S. Army and recieving the training to use high class weapsons, I looked back at my life before the Army. Why did I look at the Army as an acceptable place in life? It boils down that I am doing the same thing now that I was in childhood and indoctrinated to do -- fighting for position. Given the right tools, this agressive stance will with those less in control will lead to gun violence.
Only in America can we think that we can go out and take charge of the rest of the world. Only in America do we think we should take on Iraq on our own because it's the right thing to do. Only in America do we push ourseves to dominate so far. Only in America would we take "Dont tread on me" and make it a national attidute. In short, we are too Hooah for our own good. Its getting us into trouble. Its good on some level since we dont want to just lay down and forfeit, but we are taking it too far.
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
If Americans are, in fact, more incined to violence than other cultures, then that presents, by itself, a strong argument to ban guns in the U.S.
That only holds true if you can guarantee that no criminals will have guns as well as the law-abiding citizen.
For a little over two years I lived as a civilian in a country (Phillipines) that has very strict gun-conrtol. Law-abiding citizens don't have guns. Don't have'em, can't get 'em (leagally). But you know what? I used to lay in bed almost every night and listen to automatic weapons fire. I'm talking the real thing. Full-auto on a daily basis. In fact by the time I came back to the states I could identify by sound an M-16 (.223), M-14 (7.62 NATO), Colt 1911 (.45 ACP), and
I will gladly surrender my firearms. But first you have to prove to me that everyone else has surrendered theirs as well. Until then I will keep my weapon. Thank you very much.
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
As a libertarian, I can understand your concern about "yet more laws." What I think we need is not more gun laws, but DIFFERENT, BETTER gun laws.
Instead of this stupid trigger lock law, why not a law requiring anyone owning a firearm with a child living in the house to keep the firearm and ammo locked in a gunsafe?
The laws we have in place often don't make any sense. Repeal them and get better ones in effect. There should be an age requirement in all states (I'm thinking 21 years of age to OWN a gun, 16 years of age to USE a gun under adult supervision). Requirements to pass a test, to ensure people know all the gun laws, when it is legal to fire their weapon, general safety tips, etc.
These are the laws that keep guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens that should have that right. No kids, no criminals, no morons.
In fact, these laws could be applied equally to pregnancy.
US Rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
The US simply hasn't had a domestic land war since the Civil War. But as with every empire (including the US), there will be civil unrest again. Either the gov't will simply stomp on the unhappy unarmed people willing to revolt, or the people will make of their government what they want.
As the US Gov't continues to take away our rights, the people are becoming less and less happy..
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.ht
Article I) freedom of religion, speech, press. Right of peaceful assembly. Right to petition the gov't.
Gone. Not as federal law, but federal law enforcement will use religion, speech, and published works to profile and arrest you.
Gone, you cannot have a group meeting without the potential of the gov't arresting everyone involved, or at least monitoring for future charges. (i.e., 2600 meetings, defcon)
Gone, petitioning the gov't. Try it sometime.
Article II) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Gone. New York you are prohibited from owning firearms. California just decided Amendment II is wrong, except for the gov't. Many other states have their own select laws.
Article IV) right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Gone, as long as they can say the word "Terrorist" when they're doing it. The FBI just announced that anyone with a wireless access point is a terrorist. Add that to the list of:
a) Is of Arabic descent
b) Knows anyone of Arabic descent
c) Belongs to any group with a member of Arabic descent
d) Owns a wireless access point (above)
e) Is in any way, no matter how irrationally, associated with any group that could be considered terrorists. This can include Americans who are part of survivalist groups, "militia", the NRA, and in some cases even American law enforcement.
And now thanks to President Bush, the CIA has the power to neutralize any terrorist threat, foreign or domestic. The CIA "accidently" killed an American citizen in a publicized hit recently, on foreign soil.
Article V) deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Ask the 1000 new citizens of Guantomo Bay, Cuba about this one. Over 1 year, and no charges filed.
Ask Mitnick about his what, 4 years of being held, uncharged.
Have you read the news lately? New York is being widely known for coercing confessions, even from the innocent. From this, I've learned to be a mute whenever speaking to any law enforcement. Even the simple question "Do you know how fast you were going?". If you answer that, it's a confession, no proof required. If you don't, they have to prove what you did.
Ask every person who's had property confiscated by any local law enforcement agency, to never have it returned. They have over $1000 of my property which was "misplaced", to never be seen again.
A friend of mine in Florida had her car confiscated and almost auctioned, for a 10mph speeding ticket. She had to pay over $2000 in bribe money (Donation to a local police group) to get it back.
Article VI) right to a speedy and public trial.
Once again, look down to Cuba.. Or any other person held on "terrorist" charges. Look at any inmate held in a city or county jail on small charges. They can spend months in jail, just to be proven innocent, unless an unreasonable bribe (bail) can be paid.
Article VIII) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ya.. See the above. Check your local paper to see what the bail is for a non-incident related DUI (no harm, no foul?). How about an assult charge? Bar fights constitute those, and everyone's arrested.
How about cruel and unusual. We have a tremendous history of those. From jailhouse beatings, to bombing entire countries.. Do you think the citizens of Afghanastan really deserved to be killed from the actions of a few nuts?
Article IX) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If it's not in the constitution, you still have other rights.
I'll skip through a few more...
Article XV) Right to vote
Gone, if you're a felon, or otherwise detained. Do you think they were handing out ballots in Cuba? There are American citizens, never convicted of anything.
Gone, as in the voting is completely un-just. 30% of a population, and a large number of discarded votes does not constitute a fair election. The Gov't needs to establish a *GOOD* system for elections, rather than their half-assed attempt. You get more people driving with drivers licenses, and sending their kids to school daily, than you do voting.
Article XIX) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
How many jobs does the US Gov't deny women? (don't think it's small). It's a sexist country, no matter what this article may say.
Article XVIII) Prohibition
It was later repealed, but they've expanded it's thought to cover other intoxicants (drugs), which may be perfectly legal in other countries. This includes perscription pharmacuticals, recreational drugs (such as Hash or Marajuana), and harder recreational drugs, such as Heroin and Opium. Look at a heroin junkie, a pot smoker, and a drunk.. Tell me how the stoner is going to be a menace to society to the point of making federal laws against him.. How is he worse than a drunk? Hash and Marajuana are perfectly legal in many other countries. Enforcement in the US varies by state. Possession of any Marajuana in Florida is cause for arrest and either misdeanor or felony charges. In California, you have to have substantial quantity to be even spoken more than a few words to. Some states simply won't touch you now for possession of Marajuana.
So, with that many articles of our constitution stomped all over, how long with the empire of the United States remain? Do you really want to be unarmed when it happens?
As for your question of mishandled firearms, there are currently laws for unlawful discharge, unlawful brandishing, and even improper storage. If you are charged, a judge can and will sign an order stating you will not be allowed to own or posses a weapon. If you are a felon, I don't believe there are *ANY* states where you are allowed to posses a weapon. If you are currently on probation in most states, you cannot drink or posses a weapon. You cannot even associate with known felons, and quite a few other restrictions depending on the charges.
I've known misdemeanor viloaters on non-violent charges who can no longer possess weapons based on their charge. Not hearsay, I've seen the court documents.
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Answering the original question (Score:1, Insightful)
From the responses I read... well let's just say they explain why valium is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Why not try to give the person what they were looking for?
http://www.agoodfight.org/firefacts.asp
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/re
http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviol
http://www.comotionmakers.org/gunviolence.html
http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/06111998/g3
Professor Lott Answered this (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, given the choice between someone beating the shit out of me for my wallet or finding the tires on my car missing, I'll go with letting the insurance company pay for the new tires.
For those who claim his report means nothing, it has gone through peer review with flying colors. In the original report, there was a slight problem with the way some odd calculation was made (sorry, don't remember the details) which he changed in his final report. This slight modification did not affect the actual report, however.
Handgun Control, Inc., on the other hand, has never once put a single one of their "studies" through peer review, nor have they ever made the raw data, or collection methods available. Their failure to meet these minimum standards suggests they made the numbers up as they went along. In fact, I would bet money on it.
His report was released in the unfortunately named book "More Guns, Less Crime".
One final note, you may have heard that statement, "you are 11 times more likely to be killed with a handgun by a friend or family member than by a perfect stanger." That's true if you consider these people as friends or families: Rival gang members, convicted felons, your local illegal drug dealer (or if you are the seller, your illegal drug customer), if you are a taxi driver all random customers you pick up, and so on.
Michael Moore (Score:3, Insightful)
Only a pomposs ass as large as Michael Moore could come up with such an idiodic comparision. Canada doesn't remotely share the demographics of the US.
Re:Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
People kill people--period. Take Isreal for an example. People are killed by some homicidal crazy islamic scum who has decided that going to a restuarant, market, etc. is a crime. The solution is not to take a away guns, but the solution is to change peoples attitudes.
America is not the only place where violence takes place. To think that guns are the problem is completely moronic and simplistic. If guns are gone, then the crimals will find a way (or just use guns illegally).
I am not a member of the NRA, but I don't see anything being solved by taking aways guns--no matter what the guns. Cars kill people--especially when driven by a drunk driver, so would you take away everybodies cars? Of course not!
You have completely looked over the ONLY real solution to this problem. That is to change peoples attitudes with education and other means!!!!
Re:Anthropology and violence (Score:3, Insightful)
If we blame everything on the guns and don't look at the reason people kill each other, we'll never stop the killing. You can't solve a problem unless you are willing to discover what the problem is.
Re:Viewpoints (Score:2, Insightful)
You say it is has been necessary ever since. How is it necessary in your life to own a gun? Reading Slashdot, I'm guessing you're employed in computers, which means you work a nice 9-5 job at a desk. Do you do your wilderness-taming and native-killing before or after work? I'm guessing your paycheck puts you in a neighbourhood where you don't have to fight your way up the sidewalk to your home.
I wouldn't live in a place where I needed a gun to defend myself.
The problem: Americans are DUMB. Idiots like Bush tell them that there is a big enemy, and the populace, somehow managing to be DUMBER than Bush, eat it up. The American government has been manipulating the populace against nonexistent enemies for the benefit of big business for so long that they've forgotten what government means.
Doubtless you've never tried? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the movies, in real life it's actually pretty tough to kill somebody without a gun, especially spur of the moment.
With knives you have to catch the person and hold them, then find a vulnerable place. All of thise makes it much easier to avoid a knife killer than a gun. Generally, to be dangerous with a knife, one needs to be faster and stronger than their victim, and have some skill in knife handling. The problem with guns is that they turn any idiot with $100 into someone dangerous.
Futher, you almost never have innocent bystanders killed in drive by knifings or from a long distance with sniper knives.
Re:Viewpoints (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. It would've made it a lot easier for you to massacre our citizens and excercise your tyranny if we had eh? Too bad for you.
BTW, Bowling for Columbine presented the very interesting theory that the reason Americans are so gun-happy is that they're all shit-scared of, well, no-one quite knows (it might be, *gasp*, Black People), but they're really, really frightened of it.
Bowling for Columbine, like everything else that comes out of that man, is pure bullshit. You want to know why I own/carry a gun? Want to know what scares me? I'll tell you. Man. Not "black men" not "white men", not <insert color here> men. Specifically, I fear the depravity of man.
For all these reasons, and a whole lot more (hunting, plinking, etc) I enjoy and participate in gun ownership. My fear doesn't drive me to it whoever. I don't "sleep better" at night knowing I have a gun. However, I do know that I have better odds when it comes to defending my home and my family against all manners of violators.
I find it reprehensible that someone who has never even SEEN a gun, let alone fired one would paint such a horrible picture of those who do. What you said, boiled down to its essence, is that people who own/carry guns are racist. That's positively ludicrous.
I also hardly consider us to be in "deep shit" when it comes to firearm deaths. Particularly in light of the fact that many more deaths are prevented by firearms. Those however don't get as much coverage, and indeed, statistics cannot even come close to being accurate (they're too low, not too high) because prevented crimes don't always get reported. ANd in some areas (like where it's not legal to carry a gun as a lawful citizen) it's never reported, as doing so would then make you a target for prosecution.
And as far as being "civilized" is concerned, I find it uncivilized that you /don't/ carry a gun. There's an old adage about sheep fearing the sheepdogs same as they do the wolves, and that's generally true here. Those who carry over here in the US protect those that don't. Maybe not directly, but because of fear of who /might/ be carrying or who might have a gun in the home, robberies are fewer than they would otherwise be. And most home invasions happen while the homeowner is gone. This is not true in countries where guns are largely or completely outlawed. The criminal has nothing to fear...particularly if they have managed to come into possession of a gun of their own.
So I find it rude and uncivilized that others do not carry and instead choose to leech off of the protection my personal code and and sense of responsibility affords them. Oftentimes while decrying my ability to do so at the same time.
Re:CATO Institute (Score:2, Insightful)
oh, PUH-leeze!
The Cato institute is about as far right as you can get and still claim to any sort of credibility.
Nobody has "unbiased" facts and figures on crime and gun control. Everyone has an axe to grind, on every major issue. What you have to learn to do is look at everyone's biased figures and interpolate to something near the truth.
Polarizing and Inflamatory Rhetoric. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? I believe that it is the NRA.
I have the right to drive a car. I suspect that unless you are young or have been very irresponsible you have the right to drive a car too.
It is a right that most americans cherish
I had to prove before I could have my right that I knew how to drive and understood the many laws of the road. I needed a minumum number of hours of actual practice before obtaining my ability. I have to register my car, pay taxes on it, and insure it for liability againt the harm that I may cause others. I may not drive my car while intoxicated. There are limits to the kind of car I can drive.
But despite all that nobody is claiming that I do not have the right to drive a car!
The Auto Club is not sending me mailers every time someone wants to put up a stop light saying that the government is trying to take away my right to drive a car! (Moreover here is where to send your money to help us protect your right to drive a car!)
But the NRA, to bolster its own political power base and to increase its fundraising has created this atmosphere of fear and crisis and persecution. It is only in cases where their position is completely bankrupt (teflon coated bullets, undetectable plastic handguns) do they ever seem to move from this tactic and in each case their initial reaction is allways the same 'they are trying to take away your right own a gun'.
To bring this back to the original question the reason that there is no unbiased studies is that there is no room for an unbiased conclusion. You look at everything and it is 'well they are from the NRA' or 'they are from Handgun Control' or 'they were funded by' and so on. Everything must be tossed into one camp or the other because the sides, particularly the NRA, has delineated everything in the starkest division of black or white. You are either 'pro second ammendment' or you are planning on 'taking honest citizens guns away'.
Remember this (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Even More Reason to Ban Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Apology accepted, and no further offense taken - what with the astounding amount of horse manure seen on slashdot, I can understand your automatic assumption that the numbers were B.S. What's the old saw? 87.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
but, as I said, this is not an issue amenable to resolution by resort to "facts". (Neither are most important political issues.)
Unfortunately, this appears to be the case, although ideally it would be. Wouldn't you agree?
My opinion is based on strong emotion and belief; Murder is wrong; guns -- weapons intended solely to kill -- facilitate murder.
Again, I agree, although there are caveats about what guns are 'intended' to do. Knives are 'intended' to cut food and facilitate manual labor, but are frequently used as objects of assault. My objection here is the transfer of responsibility of that assault from the perpetrator and to their tool - my argument is simply that the shocking rate at which Americans are willing to kill their fellow human cannot possibly be attributed to their tools - that's passing the buck. I'll readily accept that the high availability of guns adds to the problem, but it isn't the cause - it's an accomplice, at worst. We, as Americans, have created a society of fear, where minor infractions are punished with death. I submit that this would still be the case even without firearms. The real question is - are we as Americans willing to do the hard work to make our society more respectful and caring (hopefully, at least equal with other nations of comparable socio-economic status) or will we continue to look for the easy 'solution' that doesn't solve the problem?
Re:Guns (Score:1, Insightful)
Well duh.
If you legalise murder, then the number of unlawful deaths would decrease dramatically too.
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bowling For Columbine (Score:3, Insightful)
I really didn't like the movie, over all. I feel like MM is way way too simplistic. His jokes aren't funny anymore.
Re:Guns (Score:1, Insightful)
Because there are two types of gun culture in the US. There's the NRA gun culture, which is actually quite law abiding and a lot less white, rural, and republican than most people would have you believe. Then there's the popular gun culture, which is presented in everything from movies to gangsta rap and is quite destructive.
As an example, let's look at the lyrics of the Thug Angel, Tupac Shakur. This is an excerpt of his song, Violent off 2Pacalypse Now.
But I looked up and all I saw was blue lights
If I die tonight, i'm dying in a gun fight
I grabed tha AK, my homie took tha 12 gauge
Load'em up quick, it's time for us ta spray
We'll shot'em up with they own f**kin weapons
And when we threw spraying, then we stepin
Compare that message to that of the NRA, and you'll see quite a contrast. The NRA has finally started to recognize it, but the Brady Campaign hasn't. The NRA isn't trying to protect the rights of people who are advocating the robbery, assault, rape, or murder of others, yet they get lumped in with them and vilified, while Tupac is lauded as some sort of modern day poet, nevermind that if you knew him only by his lyrics you'd think he had 0 respect for human life.
Another example is the anti-NRA, and therefore anti-gun, poster in the police station and comments in Lethal Weapon 4. Nevermind that the NRA is the single largest training partner with police departments in the use of firearms and judicious use of deadly force! But that's just silly reality. You'd also think that most cops are anti-gun, when the reality is somewhat more shocking. In Texas, we have a concealed carry law that allows us to become licensed to carry a concealed handgun. If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, you must present your license and your concealed license and inform the officer that you are armed when he stops you, as it will show up that you have your CHL when he runs your license. My neighbor is a traffic cop, and is very pro-gun. He says he's never once had a problem out of a CHL holder in a traffic stop, which is where most cops are likely to die in the line of duty. There's a laundry list of crap wrong with the gunplay and other related crap in Lethal Weapon 4, but you can see it in many of the other "gun" movies from Hollywood. The details can be found here [webleyweb.com]. Now given all that, is it any wonder that most people who weren't raised with strict rules regarding guns don't know how to act? My daughter is 4 years old and knows that guns are dangerous, guns aren't toys and we don't touch or play with them. We don't even buy our kids toy guns because it erodes the teaching that every gun is loaded and you NEVER point a gun at a person. My anti-gun relatives will buy their kids toy guns and not care.
If you want unbiased facts, you have to look at the sources used for those studies and view the numbers yourself. It's rather illuminating to the bias of both sides. I've seen skewing on both sides, but I've been most shocked at the sheer misrepresentation of facts from the anti-gun community. There are many things more likely to kill a child, including car wrecks, drownings, and poisoning, yet how much hollywood propoganda do you see about it? When you hear that having a gun in the home makes you a percentage more likely to die of a gun wound, do they tell you that it's skewed by suicides where a gun is used? Take out the suicides and the number drops dramatically. When they tell you how many children die each day because of a gun, do they tell you that some of those "children" are 21 year old gangbangers? When they say that "military style assault weapons" are dangerous and must be banned, do they tell you that by congressional study, "assault weapons" are used less than 1% in all violent crime? And it's not like they don't still make them! You just can't get a bayonet lug or collapsible stock, but it still fires the same type of bullets and just as fast as any other normal semi-automatic firearm. How many cases of bayonettings do you hear about?
Tangentially, most gun owners don't trust the NRA. There are an estimated 80,000,000 law abiding gun owners in the US while there are roughly 4,000,000 dues paying NRA members, less than 5%.
And if you think the NRA is hardline, you should take a look at organizations like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership [jpfo.org] or The Gun Owners of America [gunowners.org].
Re:Doubtless you've never tried? (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore guns create a system where physical strength isn't the determining factor for safety.
Personally I'm all for a better defensive weapon than guns, but they don't exist right now.
It's kind of sad we don't have better non-leathals.
CDC (Score:3, Insightful)
Taken as an absolute, gun deaths look pretty bad. But you have to remember that the USA is a large population (about 280 million), so even a small percentage is a big number. When compared to much more trivial causes of death, the numbers don't look so bad.
I actually start to wonder why (aside from the emotional issues, obviously) people are dedicating so much attention to one cause of death, when there are so many others which are more significant (if saving lives is the goal, and I assume it is).
forget individuals, Govt. has killed 160million! (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a very interesing visit to the Sydney Australia Jewish museum [sydneyjewi...eum.com.au]
There was an old New York Times from the 1930s with an article about how Adolf Hitler passed a gun control law banning Jews from possesing guns. I imagine there were a lot fewer jews killing each other after that law was passed!
I strongly suggest looking at the first link above. It is really shocking what totalitarian governments have done in the 20th century.
"I fear the government that fears my gun"
Re:Polarizing and Inflamatory Rhetoric. (Score:1, Insightful)
That's why you have to get a license.
I really don't think the NRA exaggerates the issue. Just look to that crazy 9th circuit CA supreme court ruling. I wouldn't feel safe if the supreme court ruled that free speech doesn't apply to me, and I feel the same about that decision.
Re:Viewpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the lesson of Bowling for Columbine is: Guns don't kill people, the United States kills people.
The MOST DANGEROUS Place In The World (Score:3, Insightful)
The most dangerous place in the world is... "the secondary crime scene."
Ok, you can't find it on an international map but it is a real, abet highly conceptual, place.
If you are moved from one place to another during the commission of a crime the probability that you will end up dead reaches near certianty. For whatever reason the criminal doesn't want to "do (to) you" whatever he intends while you are all where you are. If someone tries to force you into a car or to walk down a path DON'T DO IT.
To that end, going along with the crime peacfully is asking to be slain. (Ask the French, a policy of appeasment [spelling?] NEVER works.)
Therefore, being armed must increase the victims chance to resist visiting the secondary crime scene, and therefore must tend to keep people alive.
The typical shooting is IMHO an act of cowardess. The random shooters in our lot would't ever decide that a gun show or police convention was "the best possible choice" for a random act of violence. No siree... You want to have a good killin you go to a kindergarden or a MacDonalds or a commuter train or a mall. And not one in Texas or West Virgina.
The odd-but-seemingly-true of the matter is that it isn't the gun control laws that act as a functional component to the crime rate... it's the CARRY LAWS. The easier it is for a person to carry a CONCEALED weapon in a municipality, the less random gun violence takes place. If people have to cary their guns out in the open then an assailant can gage the probability he will take return fire.
Gun Violence is an act of cowardess.
The graphs (of cities etc) from least to most "easy to arrange for concealed carry"; and most to least "likely to have a random shooting"; are essentially the same graph.
Where there are no carry laws, most people don't even (have to) carry because they have the same "protective camoflage" as the little old lady next to them with that hog-leg in her purse.
And so, anything you can do you should do, to keep from being moved or looking like a victim will keep you from that most deadly place. Guns, or just the reasonable probability that a law abiding person might have a gun, are excelent in that reguard. And if you don't have a gun, get a knife, or a stick, or a good kick ready.
And the only solution *REALLY* is to figure out what makes some people need to drag others out into the bushes and do them harm, but barring that unlikely miracle, go armed if you have the mental presence to use it wisely, and don't if you don't.
(I personally don't own a gun, and wouldn't trust myself to carry one around, but I know that I feel more comfortable visiting a place like West Virginia where the law abiding persons are at least as well armed as the kooks, than I feel in LA or New York where only the kooks and bangers are armed.)
Re:rap music without guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gangster1: Yeah whassup nigga? What the fuck's wrong with you?
Snoop: Yo nigga whas happenin fool? You know the name of the game, your bitch chose me. Nigga we can handle this like some gentlemen or we can get into some gangsta shit
Gangster1: So whassup nigga?
Snoop: Have it your motherfuckin way
Gangster1: Well whassup?
Snoop: That's whassup nigga
----
Who Am I (What's My Name?):
It's like that and as a matter of fact [rat-tat-tat-tat]
Cuz I never hesitate to put a nigga on his back
[Yeah, so peep out the manuscript
You see that it's a must we drop gangsta shit]
Mr. One Eight Seven on a motherfuckin cop
Robbin motherfuckers then I kill dem blood claats
------
Tha Shiznit
So lay back in the cut, motherfucker 'fore you get shot
It's 1-8-7 on a motherfuckin cop
And serve your ass with a motherfuckin AK
------
Serial Killa
Now break yourself motherfucker, 'fore you make me
take this 211 to another level
Etc., etc., it goes on and on. So don't tell me it's all about parties.
2nd amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe Webster's Dictionary is usually relied upon for definitions in a court of law.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "militia"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Militia \Mi*li"tia\, n. [L., military service, soldiery, fr. miles, militis, soldier: cf. F. milice.] 1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
The king's captains and soldiers fight his battles, and yet . . . the power of the militia is he. --Jer. Taylor.
2. Military service; warfare. [Obs.] --Baxter.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
militia n : civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army [syn: {reserves}]
...specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
WOW! This sounds a lot like anyone who has registered for the draft.
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "regulated"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Regulate \Reg"u*late\ (-l[=a]t), v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Regulated} (-l[=a]`t[e^]d); p. pr. & vb. n. {Regulating}.] [L. regulatus, p. p. of regulare, fr. regula. See {Regular}.] 1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.
The laws which regulate the successions of the seasons. --Macaulay.
The herdsmen near the frontier adjudicated their own disputes, and regulated their own police. --Bancroft.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition; as, to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc.
{To regulate a watch} or {clock}, to adjust its rate of running so that it will keep approximately standard time.
Syn: To adjust; dispose; methodize; arrange; direct; order; rule; govern.
3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition...
WOW! This is what regulated means - to know how to use said arms
And to the person a few posts back who stated that now that we have a standing army it nullifies the second amendment - what planet are you from? The only circumstance that can change the second amendment would be its repeal. And what's this about the status quo (the way things are and have been) that tries to make it sound as if that is not what was intended - which if you read above - it was.
Sometimes not having a college education is good - many who do, think they know better than everyone else once infected with the liberalism bacteria.
You truly have NO idea what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I was going to stay out of this thread, but...
Speaking as a qualified first-aider, someone who has trained various martial arts including some serious knife stuff for much of his life, and a witness to a couple of really quite violent attacks using sharp weapons, I can honestly and sincerely say that you truly have no idea what you are talking about.
A knife is far, far more dangerous than you give credit for. Most of the good guys I know (and I've trained with some of the best on occasion) give themselves maybe 50% chance of survivial against a completely untrained guy who's actually serious about attacking them, if they're unarmed and unable to escape. Against a guy who's had the first session of training, that goes way down. Against someone who has a clue, your survival chance if you have to fight your way out is bordering on zero.
Guns may turn any idiot with $100 into someone dangerous, but a knife will do it for $5, and probably with far less risk of being caught afterwards.
And no, it's not that hard to kill someone much smaller than you on the spur of the moment without a weapon. It's not easy, unless you know what you're doing, but plenty of people have done it by accident. Size makes a hell of a difference in a fight, and often small people fail to appreciate how much stronger a big person is, and big people fail to appreciate how much more fragile a smaller person is.
Trust me, if you ever face someone with a weapon, escape should be your first priority. Failing that, find a weapon yourself, anything you can use to negate some of the advantage, and try to attract attention and get some help. If nothing else, after an encounter with a knife, you're likely to need some serious first aid in short order to avoid going into shock from blood loss, even if you didn't get hit anywhere that's fatal in itself.
Rights VS Restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
No, seriously, too much oxygen is just as fatal [ncl.ac.uk] as too little. Ask a diver.
Re:Anthropology and violence (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that a gun is registered means nothing. A stolen registered gun is still just a gun. The registration just means you know who to give it back to when you find it in an alley...
IN MY OPINION: The only real benefit of registration is that it allows you to perform your first example...
confiscate 16,000 single shot bolt action rifles from the states of Idaho, Wyoming, & Montana
Personal account about suicide. (Score:1, Insightful)
One day, I wanted to die. More exactly, one day, during a few minutes I would do anything to die. I swallowed all the pills I could take. Effect : 10 minutes later I was unconscious. Fortunately I was discovered and driven to hospital.
If I had a gun, I wouldn't be writing this.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if you're ever going to have a succesful violent revolution there's gonna be a coup involved. Even if you magically got everybody in the country to storm DC with a rifle, you still won't have a chance at getting at the president or really anybody big unless the Army helps you out. Feds go underground in Virginia, Secret Service on the roof fire rockets into the mob, your revolution's done.
The Army will always outnumber civilians in numbers that are willing to die. You guys would be fighting to make your lives better (the vast majority anyway) which is a judgement call. When you get hit with napalm, you'll decide that your personal happiness would be greater if you were having your rights violated instead of being burned alive. The same majority of soldiers would be shooting you and getting shot at because that's what they do, which is not a judgement call, and has very little to do with how unpleasant the whole thing is.
The Civil War only lasted as long as it did because more than half the Army ceceded along with the south.
In other words, marines can kill you if you have a gun or not.
This really has nothing to do with gun control, about which I probably couldn't give less of a shit, I just find it hilarious that so many people here have these fantasies about becoming a charismatic revolutionary someday. Do you think playing Ernest Hemminway in Spain will get you babes or something?
I agree with whoever it was that said "I bet you guys would love it if the US suddenly turned communist" or whatever somewhere on this thread.
Growing up in Gun Control Paradise (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up knowing nothing about guns, because they simply "don't exist" in PR. Gun control is tremendously strict, and mere mortals aren't allowed to own them.
So why do all the houses have bars on the windows? Why is the murder rate higher than Detroit's? Why have friends of mine been mugged -- some killed in the process? Why did the PR legislature pass a law explicitly allowing you to run red lights after midnight to try to protect yourself against carjackings?
It wasn't until I came to the US that I understood, and even then it took me a while. Criminals will get guns, regardless of the law. If they can get guns in PR (100x35 miles of border to patrol), and nowadays in the UK, how can we pretend that the criminals will ever be disarmed in the US?
I now live in the most heavily armed county in New Mexico, Los Alamos. Guess what? The biggest crime spree in the last year was just stopped -- some kids were stealing CDs from cars, which most people leave unlocked. This made front-page news in our paper.
There are precious few home invasions here -- criminals are cowards, and strongly prefer doing their crimes where people don't shoot at them. I've never heard of a mugging here. They sometimes happen in Santa Fe or Albuquerque, but not infrequently the criminal ends up dead.
No, it's not the Wild West. It's remarkable how civilized we are when we know that everyone is armed. Heinlein said it well: "An armed society is a polite society". And it's not fear that keeps us polite -- it's responsibility.
I hope never to use my weapons against another person... but if anyone ever presents a threat against me or my loved ones, I will not hesitate. And I will never give up my freedom to defend myself.
Re:Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the tool creates the motivation. It's never the person using the tool who's the pissed-off punk who pulls the trigger and kills someone. No, the gun jumped out of the punk's underwear drawer and leaped in his hands, and as Madriker in the Legend of Eldean, motivated the punk to do his evil deed. Hell, we can't even prosecute him, he was merely being used by the gun! He's as much a victim as the girl whose family now has to live without their daughter.
I think people who are for Gun Control are on the same level as the DRM-and "trusted computing-pushers. Because they try to eliminate the tools of freedom (Yeah, I said it. The Colonists of the US and the peasants of the French didn't launch revolutions by slapping their oppressors with fish) because they MIGHT be used by their owners for illegal things.
A hearty F-U to anyone who automatically assumes I'm a criminal because I own a gun, and double it to the same m0f0 who thinks I'm a criminal for having MP3's.
Re:Polarizing and Inflamatory Rhetoric. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are OK with the idea of armed bodyguards for the rich and famous, it is an elitist view to deny someone the privelege to carry their own weapon to defend their own life. Rosie is a very sweet and well-meaning woman, but she must disabuse herself of the notion that she lives in the real world now. Her world is different from ours. Hers is a world of bulletproof limousines and private jets. Ours is a world of drive by shootings and airline transportation. We have no control over who we spend our commute time with. She can pick and choose who gets within 50 yards of her. She no longer is made to do her own errands. Most of the time she spends in "our" world now is still carefully controlled by her handlers. We \, meanwhile, spend our lives in this chaos, and we are all infinitely aware that man is the most dangerous and unpredictable predatory animal on this planet. Sorry, Rosie, I know you mean well. It's just, you don't have all the information in front of you when you make your statements of opinion. For the average slob this is of no consequence. For you, it becomes respected opinion.
Re:Guncite is not objective (Score:1, Insightful)
All you need to know to find out what happens when you reduce the number of guns in public hands is right before your eyes in Great Britain. ONLY the public is going without, the criminals are taking advantage of Britain's thousands of miles of lonely coastline to smuggle everything from pistols to machine guns (since if the penalty for possession of a .22 or a .45 full-auto rifle is the same, you might as well use the machine gun) in order to more efficiently prey on a populace that has no meaningful or legal way to defend themselves against the criminals.
You might also look at the Phillippines, where nearly indistinguishable copies of many popular brands of pistols, rifles, and machine guns are being turned out by the thousands, handcrafted with simple tools in grass huts on muddy hillsides.
The idea that you can "reduce the number of guns in public hands to the point where criminals are going without" is devoid of any relationship to reality, and represents wishful thinking rather than meaningful analysis. Between handcrafting, smuggling, police black-marketeering from the evidence locker, or what have you, individuals with no respect for the law will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have access to firearms.
Re:To those who want to protect themselves with gu (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither do their parents.
My contradictory opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care much for the NRA - I think they go a bit overboard at times.
I think the 2nd ammendment is outdated - we have a well armed militia and probably won't need to come running out of the house to keep the King of England at bay, or even the reds.
That all being said, I think gun control is a waste of time. Much like the copy-restrictions on cd's/software/whatever, all it does is add a degree of difficulty for legitimate people - if I go to the store to buy a gun to shoot Bambi or coke cans, I have to jump through this hoop and that hoop to do something legal...meanwhile some hood or gangbanger will be getting some black market gun without all this hassle.
About the only place that I see stronger gun control helping would be crimes of passion - getting pissed and shooting someone. However, I think if I was that pissed to kill someone, then not having a gun would not be a deterant...there are enough heavy blunt objects in this world to help.
I think what is needed is sticter punishments (not a fan of the death penalty):
Shoot someone during a crime, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Shoot someone during a crime of passion, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Shoot someone in a drive by, life in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Get caught with an illegal gun, 20 years in a 6x6 box - no parole.
Instead you get infinite trials, out in a few years, and a book deal or a rap record.
Like I said - my views are mixed...don't own or want one, but don't care if others have one.
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Insightful)
That's cause their parents are obviously fucking idiots to begin with.
Strict Guns Laws works well in New Zealand (Score:2, Insightful)
Our gun laws has very big political support in New Zealand since all the right-wingers, centerists and left-wingers are very supportive of the laws. Also, note that the laws has not changed much for the past 50 years apart from changes to make it more difficult to obtain guns. I have yet to hear a major political party (read: a political party that has seats in the current parliament) critizise our gun laws. The public, in general, are also quite supportive of the laws. Everyone realises how much postivie impact the laws has had on our safety.
When I read or hear stories about gun shooting in the United States (especially school shooting), I always compare the US situation to NZ's situation. Here in NZ these things nearly never happens since no-one has guns, except those who have guns for good reasons. However in the United States anyone can just go to a shop and buy a gun and shoot everyone in the street. Its so simple in the United States to obtain guns, it's no wonder why the US has one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the world.
I think the argument that people needs gun for protection is bullshit. If no one had guns, except for the police and people who have passed strict background checks, soicety would be a much better place. In New Zealand since very few people have guns we almost never have gun deaths -- however in the US since everyone has guns, many people use guns. If guns were banned, people would have no reason to have guns since no one else would have guns in the first place.
I would be very supportive of a change to make gun control much more stricter. It has worked very, very, very well in New Zealand -- to the point that we only have one or two major gun deaths every year. Hell, most of the police staff in New Zealand don't have gun, thats how well the laws has worked. I wouldn't be the first to say that US's lax laws on gun control is one of the many reasons why the US is such a dangerous country to live in these days.
While lax gun control might have worked in the 19th century, the US must wake up to the situation in modern times. Things has changed since the United States was first founded, and so the people of the United States should remember this fact when they make up their mind on gun control.
- James
What Happened to Personal Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
I consider gun ownership part of the culture of personal responsibility that every truly honorable society should strive for. Life is a precious gift, and the taking of life one of the most serious acts a person can take. If you feel that owning a gun is your best bet to preserve life, especially that of you and your family, then go ahead and buy a gun. But part of owning a gun is taking responsibility for its use, including education children on its proper use, keeping it away from them if they are too young for it, and knowing how to use it yourself to successfully defend your family.
The government may try to legislate behavior on this issue, but treating the nation like children will never solve the problem. Give people responsibility, and let them learn to use it. It may take centuries or millennia, but eventually we will do it. If someone dies from illigitimate uses of firearms, well then our society is still not there yet. We can't save every person from being shot, but with some slow change we can make society safer at a more fundamental level. And of course note that we will never save everyone from accidents, just as outlawing bathtubs is not the way to save kids from drowning in them.
There will always be powerful weapons, given the progress of science to date, so outlawing them is not the ultimate answer. Education is the key of course to cleaning up our act. But personal responsibility is the particular goal I believe that could be accomplished.
The government ought to view passing legislation with more sincerity and try to plan for 100-1000 years hence, rather than their own re-elections. Our society has changed quite dramatically on a period of 100 years, and those nations who don't recognize the continual decay of basic humanitarianism are not going to fare well.
So gun control is not going to work, on a fundamental human level. Whether it will prevent a few deaths or not is not really the point.
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
IMO, Britain has always been a fairly peaceful place, and never had a very high murder rate. Not because of lack of guns, but because the society just wasn't violent. England's home invasion rate is something like 3 times what America's is, because criminals are afraid or armed victims here. More afraid of running into an armed victim than into a cop actually.
In England it is illegal for you to defend yourself in any meaningful way, you are supposed to be patient and hope the cops come quickly. All this does is make criminals confident, as they only have to worry about the cops. And as we both know 'cops can't find a dick with BOTH hands'.
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from that, we all know that banning guns doesn't make guns disappear. In England gun crame has went up drastically after the instituted strict gun control. How did this happen? Because the criminals, being criminals will not mind breaking a law to get guns. While the law-abiding citizen obeys the law and can't get a gun to protect himself from foresaid criminal.
It is not possible to take guns out of circulation. They are not some magical device that is impossible to produce. Any small machine shop can be used to make guns, and would be, if guns were banned.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That sounds pretty damn clear to be a right to me..
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm not sure I fully understand. If there are no guns then how will there be crimes with guns."
Gun crimes will happen when guns are outlawed the same way prostitution will happen when outlawed.
Gun crimes will happen when guns are outlawed the same way drug use will happen when outlawed.
Gun crimes will happen when guns are outlawed the same way racketeering will happen when outlawed.
I offer my sincere, sincere apologies if your post is intended as humor and I just utterly missed it. But if you're serious, by your logic, crime would never occur because
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course all the gun-control laws in the world won't stop the criminal in this example of having the gun to improperly use in the first place, so talking about a criminal improperly using a gun isn't really germane to a gun-control discussion. (which is what this topic has turned into)
Re:Center for Disease Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, if a corrupt government's action causes that kind of pain, there will be enough people to say "stop it!"
Without any resistance, there is no reason for government restraint. Look to Pol Pot for a (relatively) recent example.
It is terrible, but I have to laugh every time the 'disarm the people' argument comes up. I can't help it - Someone fed it to me, and now it sticks in my mind: I remember the line in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the Black Knight is finally completly dismarmed (and dislegged) and is asked: "What are you going to do? BLEED ON ME?"
This is not funny, but as true: "What are you going to do? Bleed on me? (Said the Nazi to the Jew.)"
Sometimes reality is really harsh. I do not believe in depriving people tools for their own defense. I do believe in severe punishment for damaging acts of offense.
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:2, Insightful)
That's important. Not things like studies from RNA or BF.
People should take care of themselves. If they are only eating and drinking, going to work and then to cinemas and with everything else they await help from government then it's not about democracy nor about any other human society. It's about herd of sheeps managed by some shepherd.
(disclaimer: Of course, in some situations, help from government - or more precisely, from society - is both welcome and necessary. But not constant care taking.)
Re:Facts vs. Conclusions (Score:2, Insightful)
The DOJ numbers only count the times where a police report was filed. This either means the person that defended themselves a) fired the weapon or b) was in an area where they felt comfortable telling the police what happened.
This leaves out all the times that a gun is used in self defense but never fired. In fact, most of the time a gun is not fired. Criminals look for easy targets. Simply the sight of a gun is usually enough to cause any person intent on harm to stop. There is nothing a home invader hates to hear more than the sound of a pump shotgun being worked.
Leaving the difference in definitions of what constitutes a defensive gun use (DGU), even using the DOJs numbers of DGUs, you have over 100,000 a year. Compare this to the 15,000 murders by guns, or even the 40,000 deaths (a number that includes suicides, and police/civilian shootings in self defense).
Re:We need to change the constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Make private ownership or use of illegal narcotics a felony. Fuck the amnesty. Destroy or conviscate any illegal narcotics found in private hands. Pay people a bonus for being a narc.
3. Arrest anyone with illegal narcotics who's got any and isn't a licensed distrubituor.
Yep.. that works real fucking well. I can point out a half dozen in my neighborhood who deal drugs.
--Demonspawn
Re:Ask ESR (Score:1, Insightful)
Guns are offensive weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
But: Many people, especially gun advocats miss an important point. You can't protect yourself with a gun. A gun can't catch a bullet or knife. Only if the bullet or knife accidently hit the steel part of the gun and bounce off in a safe direction. Much better would be a bulletproof west if you want protection.
Deterence is another thing. But any gun introduced into a conflict (were deterence is needed) raises the conflict to a potentially deadly level. A gun draws fire. If a person feels threatened by a gun and knows that he/she can loose their life they will do anything to remove that threat. That means that a gun actually makes you unsave, because it draws on violence. If the other side has a gun or any other deadly force available against you they are most likely to use it as soon as you threaten their most precious asset. Their life.
But it is such a cool, macho thing to draw a gun, ain't it?
Here we are... (Score:2, Insightful)
I dislike when people complain "waaa waaa waaa, this shouldn't be posted on slashdot, it's not news for nerds," but I'm human, damnit... I have the inborn right to be hypocritical.
I don't give half a shit about gun control, except that it is more attempts to take away our rights (not that I think anyone actually needs a gun -- especially the police, but that's not the point) Gun control is one of those back & forth issues that will not be unanimously "solved" quickly.
Hell, I might as well Submit an article entitled "Ask Slashdot: So, what do y'all think about that abortion thing?"
You have to admit (Score:1, Insightful)
You will tend to be more polite when you know the other person is packing.
It is amazing how easy it is to find a compromise to a problem when the alternative is death. Just look at DeTaunt.
It's not just guns (Score:2, Insightful)
If the U.S. cannot blame the problem on an urban underclass, gang violence, or racial issues (the U.K. and France have those too), then it has to look inwards. Easy access to guns is probably part of the problem, but the culture behind it is a lot worse. Many Canadians outside the cities and suburbs own rifles or shotguns -- they're necessary tools for a farmer or for moving around in the far North -- but they're not romanticised the way they are in the U.S.
That's not all, though. If you really want the answer, look at law enforcement. The U.S. imprisons and executes more of its own citizens, both percentage-wise and in absolute terms, than nearly any other country in the world, including such beacons of freedom and democracy as Iran, China, and Sudan. Ouch! Countries that save prisons for rapists and murderers, rather than shoplifters, computer programmers and drug users, seem to have a lot less crime.
Almost no other first-world country executes its own citizens any more. Japan has capital punishment on the books but rarely uses it; most of the rest of the countries you wouldn't be ashamed to visit don't even have it on the books anymore. Canada abolished capital punishment in the 1970's, and the murder rate has been dropping ever since.
Sure, since Americans are more likely to have a handgun in the purse, bedside table, or glove compartment, they're more likely to use it to settle disputes, and a few more people get killed that way (usually friends or family members). The biggest problem, though, is the whole cultural attitude towards crime and punishment. I'm not proposing any feel-good rehabilitation stuff here -- I don't know if criminals *can* be reformed -- but just going by the numbers, the U.S. locks more of its citizens and has a higher crime rate than other rich countries, and it is harder on drugs and has more drug-related crime. Go do the math.
Selective thinking? (Score:2, Insightful)